Doge

Because the shooters aren't stupid enough to attack armed people, they go to gun free zones, like Pulse....

Not necessarily true. The Roseburg, Oregon campus is not a gun free zone, but nobody tried to shoot the shooter. Reasons varied from fear of getting shot, fear of shooting the wrong person, and fear of being identified as the shooter. Jusr like MemeSpirited says.

I'm not sure where you're going with this... Are you advocating for or against the right to carry firearms?

I am from Oregon. Raised around guns I am not against having them for protection, but military or militarized weapons are not for protection. They have only the purpose of killing, not deterrant. What I was refering to about the college in Roseburg is that it is not a gun free zone. Additionally, the Republicans have this idea that if people are armed, there will be no terrorists or mass shootings, which is not true.

You've got a bit of a strawman going on there... It's pretty much illegal to carry any firearm that's not a pistol, and only then if you have a permit (except for those states with open carry). So I ask again, are you for or against the right to carry firearms (pistols, of course)?

I'm not a republican, and I'm certainly not saying there will be no terrorists or mass shootings. Assholes will be assholes. Just because nobody on that campus wanted to step up doesn't mean that nobody EVER will.

I already said I am not against firearms. I do, however, believe that if I have to license my dog, people should license their firearms. And if it is illegal for cities to have ordinances against pitbulls (wrong though it is), they should have the right to have ordinances against guns.

Why won't you answer my question? I didn't ask if you were against firearms. I asked if you were against the right to carry firearms.

As to your attempt to change the subject, remembering that the above is the main point, I'll go ahead and respond to the statement there.

Do ordinances against pitbulls actually keep people from owning pitbulls, or do they just own them illegally? Do laws against drugs actually keep people from having drugs, or do they just have them illegally (a point I made in one of my submitted memes for today)? Most people do not use drugs because they are illegal. I'm betting most people who don't think pitbulls should be banned also don't own a pitbull because it is illegal. Make any guns illegal, and law-abiding citizens won't have them (by definition). That will not stop someone wishing to use one to cause harm. Even now, with fully-automatic weapons being illegal, there are people who possess them.

And short of issuing a card or certificate, the fact that there are so many hoops to jump through just to purchase a firearm, or even ammunition, is license enough. Every legal sale is registered.

And I failed to address a previous point you made (here, anyway; I've addressed it in another meme of mine) that what you call "militarized" is simply an aesthetic. There are non-"militarized" hunting rifles that fire a higher caliber round at a higher muzzle velocity. These rifles can do MUCH MORE damage than your "militarized" rifles. Indeed, using a term like "militarized" or "assault" is nothing more than an attempt to incite fear and suggest negative connotations. How about dealing with the fact that the non-"militarized" rifles can kill more people more quickly? They are so powerful that a round can pass through one person and kill another. Their purpose is to ensure a one shot/one kill while hunting so that the target animal is not made to suffer from the wounding of a misplaced shot.

Why don't we hear a public outcry against the owning of pressure cookers and backpacks?

Calm down. In my mind, I did answer your question when I said that I am not against them. To be specific, I am not against the right to carry them, though I am not too sure that people like my paranoid son-in-law should have the right. I also like to see the weapon, so I prefer open carry to concealed. Just a weird quirk of mine. In states like mine, there are no hoops to jump through if you want to buy a weapon at a show, and it doesn't even have to be a gun show. You walk in, plunk down the money and walk out with the weapon. The state even passed a law that said that counties and cities cannot change that about any private or show sale. No registration is necessary.
It doesn't matter how powerful a single bullet is, when they don't carry so many bullets. If the gun is not capable of spewing out so many bullets that the shooter has a fair chance of shooting all the targets before reloading, there are opportunities to stop him. The fact that shooters often have time to reload pisses me off. People that are not willing to take that chance and would prefer to hide under a desk and hope he forgets them, are stupid, but I digress. According to Snopes, a ".223 SIG Sauer MCX semiautomatic rifle...is often outfitted with a magazine that holds 30 rounds, higher-capacity magazines are legal in Florida and reasonably easy to buy online. Other add-ons for the MCX — which is favored for its modularity, firing speed, controllability, and its ease of use." A weapon like this has no place in civilian hands, as it is not for protection, nor hunting. If you are armed and a lone gunman comes in, you only are shooting at one target. Why do you need an semi-automatic weapon to shot a single target? If you need more bullets, either the shot wasn't clear and you shouldn't have wasted a bullet, or you are a bad shot and are probably as dangerous to bystanders as the gunman is.
As for pit bulls, where they are illegal, you can't walk them or even let them into your own yard. Animal control will take them from you any time they are seen, and even enter your yard to take them. It is hard to own a large active dog that you can't take outside and that you can't let neighbors of visitors see because they may turn you in.

points:

1) You've obviously never been in any debate classes or clubs. You would've been tagged on TOPICALITY and MAKING A STRAWMAN ARGUMENT several times.

2) Not being against firearms in general does not necessarily mean you're not against the right to carry them. Nowhere did you answer this specific question.

3) To legally carry concealed needs so many checks, and requirements to be met, that it would be unlikely that your paranoid son-in-law would be able to get the permit. Unless that is just your opinion, and he's not actually been diagnosed. No system is perfect. Did you read that the Orlando shooter SHOULD NOT have been given permission to purchase that weapon, but a clerical error during his background check allowed it?

4) http://gun.laws.com/state-gun-laws/oregon-gun-laws says you are either ignorant of your state's gun show laws, or are blatantly lying. To quote:

"The most commendable provision in Oregon gun laws is in regards to gun shows. Commonly unregulated, these markets breed swarms of illegal handgun transactions. Most states do not comply with the Brady laws, and do not require background checks for potential buyers; Oregon has instituted such a policy. In order to purchase a handgun, or any firearm at a gun show, a comprehensive Brady background check will be administered. This simple procedure greatly curbs gun trafficking, and the illegal sale of firearms to convicts, addicts, or those who are mentally unstable."

5) Have you ever spoken to a Vietnam veteran? They used to rig their magazines so that they could shoot more between reloads. And do you seriously believe that large magazines wouldn't be smuggled in/used if they were made illegal?

6) It is illegal to carry a rifle or shotgun in EVERY state. Whether you have a rifle for protection, for hunting, or for shooting people is determined SOLELY BY THE PERSON USING THE RIFLE. And you'd be hard-pressed to find a handgun that ISN'T semi-automatic. Or do you think we should go back to only being allowed muzzle-loading, black powder handguns?

7) Pit bulls are actually a bad comparison, and I should have called you on it sooner. Although I WILL make this point: People with illegal firearms aren't sitting there bringing them out for anyone to see ("Hey, Bill! Come check out my UZI!). A more apt comparison would be illegal drugs.

And it wasn't an "automatic" rifle, it was a semi-automatic rifle. There is a difference.

I know, it's just a meme, but low IQ Dems are dumb. 1) automatic rifles are restricted (wrongfully), and 2) many mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens.