The Orlando shooting has caused more debates about what measures should be taken to prevent additional mass shootings. Although we continue to fight and debate, nothing has changed, and nothing is changing. We continue to be regularly subjected to mass shootings that kill off dozens of innocent people.

While lots of pro-gun people out there vehemently oppose the idea of any additional forms of gun control, I pose this question to them: how powerful of weapons should the general population be permitted to wield? I believe most of us can agree that civilians should not be allowed to possess bazookas and machine guns, but I could be mistaken. Where is the middle ground here?

Edited 6/23/2016 03:53:27

Never.

The middle ground is to make guns such as the AR-15 illegal. Oh wait...

Let them have it all. If they want to overthrow a military, they need military grade weapons.

http://www.ijreview.com/2016/06/631774-cbs-reporter-may-have-broken-federal-law/

background check these gun buyers

Never.

Never what? Please answer the actual question I posed.

@Ben the point of this thread is not to attack the general beliefs of a party, but to make your own stance known, as I also ask of you to actually answer the question.

@PE first of all thank you for answering the question, but I must ask if it would it be worth it to allow unrestricted access to any kind of military weapon? You cannot argue that the death toll from attacks like Orlando wouldn't rise, so you must believe that this is a fair trade-off for being able to overthrow a military. However, it would seem to me that, despite having access to any form of military weapon, that since the US has by far the most powerful military on the planet, it would still be nearly impossible to overthrow?

Yeah, well the whole point of the original post was to attack "Pro-gun folk", when every you talk about mass shootings done with guns that are illegal and the shooter pledged alligence to ISIS, I think you have a bit of a logical fallacy that I can attack.

and Muslims shouldn't get guns.

Although I totally agree with background checks, I must disagree with this one. You cannot target the rights of the entire Muslim body for the actions of a few- especially since only a fraction of shootings in the US are perpetrated by Muslims.

first of all thank you for answering the question, but I must ask if it would it be worth it to allow unrestricted access to any kind of military weapon? You cannot argue that the death toll from attacks like Orlando wouldn't rise, so you must believe that this is a fair trade-off for being able to overthrow a military. However, it would seem to me that, despite having access to any form of military weapon, that since the US has by far the most powerful military on the planet, it would still be nearly impossible to overthrow?

+1 here

I'm for full-on gun bans when it is in a setting where it would work, like in Australia or Japan. Some other countries also have done it well. But often, it just won't really affect much, it's been shown throughout and throughout that gun bans of any kind doesn't actually affect the killing rate much; however, just to sell to anybody - retards and killers and who knows who else, that's a bit far - some checks must be done. It's actually kind of amazing, some states in America don't actually have any gun regulation strengths whatsoever - it's fully unchecked.

Yeah, well the whole point of the original post was to attack "Pro-gun folk"

Wrong. See, this is what has become of us- we are so polarized that we see even non-offensive statements that are seeking a compromise as attacks against a belief. I was not at all attacking "pro-gun folk", I was asking them a legitimate question out of curiosity, while also making it known that I am not among them.

Also, the Orlando shooting was a very small happening, it's just getting fearmongered on all sides to promote their agenda. Roughly 170k other folk died that day, so what? Even in America alone, this is insignificant.

I will never draw the line. Come and take it from my cold dead hands cuck.

The least you could do is offer an intelligent response if you're going to even bother to participate.

I had a coworker that bought his 4 year old a gun for protection. People should be required to take some sort of intelligence test. There's no reason a toddler needs a gun.

It is an intelligent response. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it dumb. Get rekt Jew.

It is an intelligent response. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make it dumb. Get rekt Jew.

What, specifically, is intelligent about giving a toddler a gun?

I guess it could help move natural selection along.

Edited 6/23/2016 04:00:08

Exactly. We need to bring back evolution if we want mankind to flourish. Plus, overpopulation will soon be a huge problem.

+1 PE