"Military Style" weapons are more viscerally frightening, therefore it's easier to get people to talk, and vote, about them. That said, my current plan is to buy myself either a Glock or an SKS 45 as a graduation present to myself.

>>6176797
Because with a military style weapon, I can rob a bank better.

>>6176865
> buy myself a glock
right. that's like me saying "i'm just going to go and buy myself a ford car"

>>6176893
wHAT?! i COULD SAY i WANT A HANDGUN. YOU VAUGE NAZI

>>6176797

Gee you're right. I guess wed better ban those guns too

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

To take away the means of toppling the government if there is a revolution.

You really think your puny handguns will defend you against an organized military?

>>6176865

>buy myself either a Glock

>buy myself either a grenade

firearms terminology 101

>>6177141

are you familiar with current events in the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan?

>>6177141
LOL BECAUSE AMERICANS HAVE USED GUNS FOR REVOLUTION IN THE PAST 230 YEARS DERP DERP

Because emotions running high is much more productive when trying to mis-direct.
Calm rational discussions do not make it easy to rile people up as much, or as feverishly.
tl:dr LOOK OVER THERE!
And this.>>6177141

Who ever needs an automatic gun for self-defence. I mean, really? Explain to me one realistic situation.

Letting people own AK47's will only allow them to kill more people if they go for a highscore.

Glock 17, 9mm

yeah buddy

>>6177229
>automatic gun

You are aware that all of the AK-47s you see hanging on a wall in a gun shop only fire once each time the trigger is pulled, right?

>>6177141
sorry bro, having an uzi or an smg doesn't make you more frightening to the military industrial complex, just your neighbors

if obama wants to come fuck your wife with his big black cock, you're not gonna do anything about it

I like that shotgun actually. :3

People are probably so scared of military weapons because in the hands of well-trained soldiers are awesomely efficient killing machines.

I got a .38 special and it's awesome for shooting nortenos.

>>6177141
You could own a cruise missle and the government still would be able to take your ass down in a matter of minutes. At best, you could assassinate a choice politician or two, you're not going to be toppling any governments. Stop deluding yourself.

Look, I'm pretty pro gun ownership, but the reasoning of so many wing nut gun owners is retarded.

"We need guns so we can rise up against the corrupt government!"

Do you have jets, tanks, and artillery? The government does.

So it's fairly pointless to argue that even a fully automatic 50 cal machine gun is going to mean shit to a government that can blow you into dust in a few minutes.

>>6176797
Mass ownership of military grade weapons allows citizens to overthrow the government's military and police force.

Almost no crime is commited with a military rifle, they just cost way too much for the average criminal. Laws have nothing to do with protecting people, but are in place to protect both the politicians and military.

>>6177344
Of course. But if 1 in every 10 people had a cruise missle or equivalent weaponry, you can bet your ass it'll be a hard fight.

>>6177278

i'm pretty sure the government is concerned about people still being able to kill a president.

>>6177369
the insurgents in iraq and afganistan do not have tanks, jets or artillery

and they did pretty damn well

Instead of saying "HURR DURR WE NEED GUNZ TO OVERTHROW THE NAZIS", I'm moving the burden of proof.

Why SHOULD assault weapons be banned?

>>6177430

Do the insurgents now have majority control of either country? Do they do anything other than galvanize public opinion against them when they blow up crowded markets? Do they cripple the occupying force by making IEDs and blowing up Humvees?

I think you're giving these guys too much credit.

>>6177549
I dunno, does the US have majority control in either country?

because the shoulder thing goes up