Yeah, I'm with you. The only form of gun control I support is holding it with both hands.
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
-- Sigmund Freud
2006-06-24 18:10:10
·
answer #1
·
answered by Incorrectly Political 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
The argument that gun control ( the real kind, not the stupid "use both hands" kind) will only allow criminals to have guns is absurd. First of all the only evidence you really need is England. Even the cops don't have guns and somehow the sky hasn't fallen. I live in a city that has a homicide every other day or so, most of which occur with guns. I seriously question the mental capacity and moral leanings of anyone who says that more citizens with guns is the answer to my city's problems.
Also, gun control means that while some "bad guys" will still get guns, the flow will be restricted easily tracked. With stricter enforcement the police will be able to do their job more quickly, safely, and effectivly. It's not like controlling guns gives them to the bad guys, the police would still have them for the protection of everyone.
Now, before all you rednecks get your overalls in a twist, I think you need to realize something. The 2nd amendment is not going anywhere. Gun control doesn't mean you won't be able to have your hunting rifle or your handgun for home protection. It simply means that you won't be allowed to buy guns in a no questions asked enviorment.
For those of you here who oppose gun control do you oppose a wait period? A background check? a limitation on the caliber of wepons? I dont see how any of these restrictions infringes on your right to bear arms. If you are one of the "good guys," whats the problem with letting us all be sure of that before we as a society give you the power to take life away.
The rights to life and liberty are far more important than the right to shoot at ****.
2006-06-27 02:05:04
·
answer #2
·
answered by mattrob3 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
September I received my Concealed weapons permit. I have learned something very interesting and completely unexpected. I'm more patient and kinder since I have been carrying. I never thought that would occur. I've never drawn on any body, never even pulled my weapon ( came close the other night when my neighbor pushed my door open at 10 PM I went to a reddish-orange awful quick when he did that).
I haven't had any intent on doing anything of the sort when I bought my first firearm three years ago, and I think that the fact that I am nicer and long ( well at least longer) suffering is the fact that if I do something stupid that I reflect badly on every legal gun owner in this country. Seeing how wusses see those of us who refuse to be victims, the last thing I would want to do is hurt someone elses rights. Again, I had self-control before but I see less of a need to prove anything to anyone.
And in all honesty, the whole turn the other cheek thing makes more sense now than ever before. But this doesn't mean if my life or my family's lives are in trouble I would run away.
2006-06-25 00:30:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by .45 Peacemaker 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Gun control is very important. But stupid, over reaching gun control is is un constitutional. There is no reason a former felon should be allowed to buy an AK 47, but at the same time a hunter should have no problem buying a shot gun. Gun control is not black and white. It is a topic in need of very serious debate. Anyone who comes down on either side, saying there should be no limits on guns, or that guns should be outlawed, is not serious enough to honestly understand the debate.
2006-06-24 15:20:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by sammy 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think there needs to be some form of gun control, but not too strict. There are weapons out there that no one but the military needs to have, yet they are sold every day. If we could guarantee that everyone who had a gun used it responsibly, then we wouldn't need it. But, unfortunately, that's not the case. And all of the education on the proper use of a gun in the world is not going to solve the problem.
Even if there were super strict gun-controls in place, they'd still be sold illegally and we'd be no better off than we would be without those controls.
2006-06-24 15:16:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by jada_riab 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Gun control is stupid as are the lame arguments used by most advocates.
Some restrictions are reasonable, Uzis for hunting...agreed.
To those who think the 2nd amendment is only about militias, read it. Along with the rest of the Constitution. It's about the RIGHT of the CITIZENS to own guns. Every other or the 50 plus instances of the term "right" in the Constitution refers to personal guaranteed rights. A militia, or any other government entity does not have rights, only responsibilities. The primary reason for the 2nd amendment is to prevent our politicians from forming an uncontrollable totalitarian government. (Despite what some of you hateful, anti-Bush nutcases say, we do not even come close to having one now.)
2006-06-28 17:58:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by RockHunter 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Sure. You get into tripod mode, it needs to be stabilized before you shoot it.
Oh wait, that was not what you were asking, was it...
You cannot defeat a government with a rifle. Gun control does not make a damned bit of difference at this point. Start talking RPG's at least.
On a government level, gun control means crap. On a personal level, yeah, I think I would like to see the guns taken out of the hands of felons.
2006-06-24 15:30:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by diogenese19348 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
in the uk the only reason that gun crime hasn't spiralled out of control is because of how strict it is. Many people use films as reference point on how to use a gun and as aresult incur injury on themselves or misfire. I thank god that i live in country where disputes are settled in a proper good oldfashined way with a fist fight, not some p***y aiming something little more powerful than a pea shooter
2006-06-24 15:20:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by themanwithnoname 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Anyone who feels gun control is necessary needs to realize that there are rules on the books already that would do all the things that gun control is supposed to do if they'd just enforce them.
The real purpose of gun control is to disarm law abiding citizens to make them easier prey for criminals.
2006-06-25 15:37:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by asterisk_dot_asterisk 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
My idea of gun control....use both hands, and yes I support that.
But seriously, I think there should be a limited amount of control. Colorado is great for this...they check to see if you have a felony or violent crime. If you are clear then you get a gun.
You want to carry one concealed...you take an approved class that cover gun safety, tactics, and law...then bam you get a permit to carry.
Pretty sweet.
2006-06-24 15:15:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by sshazzam 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No gun control for hunting guns. But there is no need to hunt deer with an uzi. The second amendment only addresses guns in a state militia.
2006-06-24 15:22:29
·
answer #11
·
answered by chairette2001 2
·
0⤊
0⤋