I'm all in support of allowing people to have their guns - for protection, for hunting, etc. What I do NOT understand is the "need" for an assault rifle. I really don't.
And gun laws HAVE to be tougher. Why was a man who was investigated by the FBI three times, able to get two guns? Yes, I know that he would've have gotten them one way or another - but maybe this would deter others.
I just wish for peace and kindness. I'm glad there are people who are passionate about their beliefs, but can't we just learn to coexist?
@ctl74: First of all, an AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. It looks like one, but doesn't not have fully automatic firing capability. The liberals like to call any "black" rifle an assault rifle, which is a lie. Years ago, I wondered why anyone would "need" or even "want" an AR-15 or semi-auto AK-47. Then my government tried to take them away. At that point, I felt I needed both and I got both.No, guns laws DON"T need to be tougher. We have enough gun laws in place, but they are not enforced. The FBI had two opportunities to restrict his gun ownership, but did not do so. Let's do a better job of enforcing existing gun laws before we add more gun control laws.My AR-15 is accurate enough to hit prairie dogs between 200-300 yards. While I do own some 30 round magazines, most of my shooting is done with 10 round magazines. The 30 round magazine gets in the way if you are shooting from a table or bench.I am considering buying an AR-10 in the future. That is a slightly enlarged AR-15 and shoots the .308 cartridge... one of the most popular cartridges in this country for deer, antelope, elk, etc.
4951