LOL, ok, lets try this. What is the purpose of gun control?

Question

Please answer with your own opinion.
And tell me johnslat, what's wrong with a full auto?

EXACTLY! Ladrhiana, you nailed it perfectly. Thank you.

Ok John, I love debating this subject, so lets have fun. I hope your watching cause I hate to wait around for an answer.
First off, the second amendment to the Constitution has absolutely nothing to do with hunting weapons. The second amendment is for weapons to defend our country! We have weapons so that we can protect our selves and our God-given country! If you want to own a full auto, I see nothing wrong with that, and no, you would not use it to hunt. You would use it to shoot terrorists! You fought in Nam, I thought you of all people would have respect for guns.
I could go on, but I want to see what you have to say so far. I look forward to hearing from you. =)

Ok, I only have a minute, so I will only talk about one or so parts of your argument.

First off, you can't get any gun without restriction, which is a state rule (which is why it varies from state to state). Take concealed weapons as an example. Also, there is always consequence to every thing you do. We have the freedom to say whatever we wish, but if we say the wrong thing, we will be punished. Same with guns. True you may get a few idiots with guns who very well could abuse their right, but the consequence will more than likely be their life...at which point you have just rid the world of one idiot. Besides, most Americans own guns...do we have that much of a problem? And you might mention Columbine...hey man, I was there for Columbine, and I'm still an avid supporter of gun rights! Look at it this way, if I or any other person had had a pistol at Columbine, then there might have been less lives lost!

Hate to make it short and incomplete, feel free to comment though.

Answer 1

gun control only restricts the law abiding

Answer 2

It seems to me that the purpose of gun control is to systematically disarm law abiding citizens only, one type of firearm at a time.

"Gun Control" is not needed because there are plenty of laws on the books already that do the things that gun control freaks want done.

EDIT: hey, Johnslat, If you would do a little research on Ted Nugent you'd find that he's an avid hunter, wildlife supporter, and firearm supporter. As a matter of fact he owns an MP5. I believe he's also on the board of directors of the NRA. And he hunts with much more than a bow and arrow.

BTW, how come nobody wants to license bows and arrows? They can kill just as easily. And they're quieter. I have to have a license to own a silencer. But no license to own a bow and arrow.

Answer 3

It depends on what part of "gun control" you are talking about. Different laws have different intentions.

For example, there are laws which prevent children from buying a gun. Its intent is simple: Children lack the capacity (and often the experience) to be able to use guns safely. Even if they feel threatened.

You should be careful that you don't lump all "gun control" laws together. Some might be shortsighted (and others might not be) but there should be some restrictions on access. Even gun nuts believe that kids shouldn't be able to buy guns. And most believe that violent criminals should not be able to either.

Answer 4

The purpose of gun control is a misguided assumption that if the guns are gone the killing will stop. I beg to differ--I believe that about 6,000 years ago Cain killed Abel and he durn sure didn't have a gun.

Do I advocate for gun control? No. Do I wish the senseless killing would stop? yes. The best solution I have found is the cities that REQUIRE all adults over 21 to carry a gun. People there don't break the law. They are afraid to.

Answer 5

Some points to waste today I see...

The purpose of gun control is to keep them out of the hands of those that should not have them.

Er, and you have noticed that does not work, right?

The NRA is right on that one, sad to say.

The criminals WILL in fact find guns.

Nah, I don't have an answer to it.

Wish I did.

-Dio

---

Full auto.

Same question I asked earlier. What the hell is the point?

A freaking rifle is not going to change the government, it really isn't. Who cares?

Look, the question is not if you can own a rifle, it is if you can own an F-16.

Ask the right question.

Can you own an F-16? Do you know?

Answer 6

The purpose of gun control is to prevent, insofar as it is possible, weapons that have no legitimate sporting use from being acquired by anyone - including nutsos who get it into their sick minds to shoot up a school or a post office.
What's "wrong" with a full auto? What are you planning to use it for? If you need a full auto to hunt, you must be a terrible shot. Why not emulate Ted Nugent and use a bow and arrow. That requires skill, not firepower.
As for gun control's only restricting the law abiding, take a few minutes and visit this web site:

http://www.newsbatch.com/guncontrol.htm

I'm NOT saying "ban private ownership of guns"; what I am saying is that at present it's FAR too easy for any whack job to get his/her hands on a hand-held WMD.

I have a lot of "respect" for weapons, especially for automatic rifles (I used an M-14 in Vietnam) - which is exactly why I don't want them readily available to just about anyone.
Do you have any idea how many "disturbed" individuals there are, running around loose?
Maybe a look at the current interpretations of the 2nd Amendment would be appropriate.
These interpretations tend to lean in one of two ways. The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States could form, arm, and maintain their own militias. Either way, it is a bar to federal action only, because the 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.
The Court, in permitting the United States to apply a stamp tax to sawed-off shotguns (a move, it was argued, that was intended to make such weapons de facto illegal), essentially said that such weapons do not contribute to the maintenance of a militia, and have no use in ensuring the common defense (United States v. Miller, 307 US 174 [1939]). The rationale used in Miller has been the basis for all gun control laws since 1939. As the GPO page notes, "At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer."
Both interpretations are correct, in a way. As illustrated in the first section, the amendment does appear to have been designed to protect the militias, and it was also designed to protect an individual's right to own and bear a gun. The question, then, is do we have to adhere to both tenets of the amendment today? If we decide to do away with the individual ownership aspect of the Amendment, reinterpreting the amendment to allow highly restricted gun ownership, we seem to open the door to radical reinterpretation of other, more basic parts of the Constitution. If we decide to do nothing, and allow unrestricted gun ownership, we run the risk of creating a society of the gun, a risk that seems too great to take. So the real question seems to be, can we have the a constitutional freedom to bear arms, and still allow restriction and regulation?
Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution. After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution?
The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation. Gun ownership is indeed a right - but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise.
Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, I propose a new 2nd Amendment - an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution:

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. Because "reasonableness" can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the same bill - this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these votes, to be heard (both at the ballot box and in general). It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation. Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the President's own agreement). The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.

Answer 7

Gun control is designed so that only people who want to have a gun illegally will get one. It also helps to control incompetent legal gun owners from having a dangerous item in their home - like bleach or a car or stairs or kitchen knives which should also be controlled and kept away from incompetent people. By the way, I would like to be the one who decides who is incompetent.

Answer 8

well if the government take a way peoples guns then the only people with them will be criminals they don't care about laws if somebody is trying to kill you how are you going to defend your self i have a full auto Sten MK 2 sub machine gun and i love it and there isn't a damn thing wrong with having it i know i don't have to be a victim Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my Sten gun NRA FOREVER

Answer 9

Well...Lets see....I can name you three ex marines who cant hit the side of a barn with a full auto. Now there is a perfect reason for gun control!

Answer 10

My idea for gun control is to hit your target!

Laws only stop law abiding citizens...not the criminals.

As for children having guns or being shot...That requires that the gun(s) in the home to be locked up...out of sight/out of mind.