Pro-gun activists flood US state capitals defending right to bear arms

LOL- you should LOOK at some of the pics in the link. What a laugh.

Pro-gun rallies have been held across the US demanding the White House curb its sweeping new gun-control proposals and to defend the second amendment of the constitution.

(*)Thousands of protestors took to the streets across the US, after a massive social-media grass roots initiative called “Guns Across America,” called on Americans to defend the right to bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment of the constitution.


Most of weapons advocates gathered next to state capitol buildings, where on-going discussions on gun control are taking place following December’s Sandy Hook massacre.


Around two thousand people took to the streets of New York. Other locations throughout the nation witnessed crowd of different sizes, from dozens of people in South Dakota to around 600 people Austin, Texas.


"An Armed Society is a Polite Society," and "The Second Amendment Comes from God," were among the slogans used by the people to protect their constitutional right.


In some states, like Arizona and Oregon, men came with rifles on their backs.


In Connecticut where the December 14 tragedy unfolded, more than 1,000 people urged the authorities not implement new restrictions on gun possession.

On December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza burst into Sandy Hook Elementary School killing twenty children and six teachers in Newtown, Connecticut. The second-deadliest school shooting in US history, after the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre, sparked a debate over the fate of the second amendment.


This Wednesday, President Barack Obama called on Congress to pass a number of proposals that could allow for sweeping new gun laws across the country. If approved, the measures will ban the buying and selling of certain assault weapons, close loopholes that circumvent a background check requirement, impose limits on ammunition purchases and more.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed into law Tuesday gun control legislation banning military-style rifles and imposing tighter restrictions on ammunition.

http://rt.com/usa/news/pro-gun-rallies-us-344/

 

Can't decide which is my favourite :

 

Have you seen some of the Obama voters?

 

Why would anyone need any Arm with a long barrel, for defense of self and property in any urban environment?

 

Seeing as how this IS the World Events Forum, the only way to explain it is to use the available language posters here are used to:

"The Sandy Hook Massacre was a 'False-Flag' attack by Zionists in order to provide the Jew-Loving US Government the means to take our guns away so that we cannot defend ourselves from the Israelis."

 

In my opinion, well regulated militias should know and understand the difference between the common defense and the common offense.

 

Do you know what kevlar is?

 

So?

10char

 

How is a long barrel going to make a difference in close quarters?

 

I'm not sure what he's referring to either, since there is ammo available for handguns that can go through kevlar.

Nonetheless, targeting rifles for bans doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

There are certain high powered rifles that could be cause for concern in terms of bullets going through walls and such, but unless a ban is very specific about banning the applicable guns and ammo, it seems rather silly.

The restrictions already in place for automatic weapons make sense. There doesn't really need to be further restriction of semiautomatic weapons.

 

LOL.

If that is the standard, I don't see the US state near worry about a revolt.



- - - Updated - - -

I do.

I have some gloves and other items. Hard to cut through, shoot through, or burn.

 

It does, a huge size of a difference. In close quarters, or at longer distance.

 

Well then; sounds like, you're an expert on body armor. Unless it's a Desert Eagle we're talking about, handguns will only dent kevlar vest, which most perpetrator wear nowadays. Rifle, it's another story altogether.

 

The gloves I have have ball bearings in them, as well as being Kevlar. To be honest, the only time I have ever used them, was to pick up some ferrets that needed to be transported. If you know how sharp their teeth are, you will see it made sense!

 

Is this an argument for or against long barrels? Cannot figure...

 

Do you have a point? What has that got to do with anything?

 

I have no thought on that, I have only ever fought with my hands.

 

The slogans pretty well encapsulate most of the rather more fervent opposition attitudes towards reasonable gun control. Given that I'd say the chances of reasonable gun control, if the debate were based on reality and logic, would be pretty good.

 

Why wouldn't an Arm that may not discharge, but which may have a working bayonet, not be better in close quarters?

 

How often do thieves use a long barrel?

 

Again, what point are you trying to make in a discussion about the 2nd amendment?

 

You are welcome to compare and contrast a pike in the manner of the Greek hoplites versus shorter weapons. There are some good videos on YouTube.

- - - Updated - - -

It is about the advantages and disadvantages of long barrels versus short barrels for protection of self and property.

 

What does that have to do with the 2nd amendment?

 

It could useful in determining why civil persons need long barrel rifles for defense of self and property.

 

Which has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment.

Why don't you just be honest, and quit trying to make (*)(*)(*)(*) up to justify your wanting to disarm the law abiding populace?