Can someone tell me why we shouldn't have any gun control?

Question

Why are conservatives so opposed to gun control? Despite what ever lies the N.R.A. has been telling you DEMS don’t want your guns, all their trying to do is get assualt rifels off the streets, and whats wrong with that? What in the world does the adverage citzen need with an assualt wepon any way? Their of no use unless your planning on ambushing a platoon of deer. And yes I know all about the second admendment, and I really don’t think that when the founding fathers wrote that they envisioned wepons that could spit off 500+ rounds a min..and just as a side question are you opposed to all froms of gun control, including backround checks and registration?

Answer 1

The reason why we want an armed populace really isn't so some guy can shoot squirrels in the woods. Shooting squirrels in woods is useful for knowing HOW to aim, and shoot a gun.

No invader really wants to attack a country where the entire populace not only owns guns, but knows how to use them. Most of the populace of the USA does have guns, and ammo for them, at home.

Hasn't anyone ever thought that those terrorist types haven't thought that attacking neighborhoods isn't a really good idea? They do that in their own backyards...why not here? Probably because they would get shot at from nearly every house.....

An educated, armed, patriotic society who likes their peaceful lives is a hard one to take down.

We have it so easy here, most people don't even think about the fact that the REASON people have the right to have arms in the first place was for protection against tyranny of a government out of control.

Answer 2

Do you know how expensive true assault rifles are? A full-auto M4 can easily cost $10,000 and black market ones would be higher due to their rarity. It's expensive just to get the license to be able to buy an automatic firearm. An assault rifle is one that can fire more than one bullet with one pull of the trigger. However there are many semi-automatic version of popular military rifles such as the AK-47's legal alternative is the Romanian W.A.S.R. 10, and the M4s legal alternative is the Bushmaster XM15. These are exact reamkes of assault rifles but only shoot one bullet at a time. But if people had reasonable access to full auto guns events like North Hollywood shootout may not happen again because there would be a brave citizen in the area who might go vigilante on the shooters. The sole purpose of the Second amendment is defend the nation from attackers and threats. Think "Red Dawn", while the movie is a little far-fetched the idea is right on. If citizens have access to assault style weapons they could defend this nation if it came under invasion. As far as why someone would need an assault rifle lets use the analogy of cars(who kill the same if not more people as guns). OK so a Ford Taurus is a car that can take people where they need to so why would anyone NEED something like a Ferrari or BMW? Really they don't NEED it but it is just more fun to drive than the Taurus(so should sports cars be banned?). Same with guns, Target shooting with a fully automatic, 150 round double drum magazine, straight from the Russian Army is alot more fun than shooting a bolt-action .22. Humans have always killed each other even since Kain and Able. People always have and always will kill each other through guns, knives, rocks, hands whatever it takes. Those who say guns make it easier to kill people are correct, but guns also make it easier for people to defend themselves from the criminals with guns. which brings up another point, a criminal by definition is someone who has commited a crime. If you have committed a major crime in the United States you are barred from owning a gun. So the criminals that already have a gun have illegally and would not likely give it to the government if guns became severly controlled. The fact that Class III weapons such as full autos, silenced, etc. are hard and expensive get. To get one you have to have a very through background check that takes time and money. Someone having gone through all that trouble would not likely sell that gun to some criminal, the risk is just too much for the people who have Class III licenses.

Answer 3

Read the Federalist Papers then ask. Look at the lack of protection from the government post-Katrina and tell me what you would do when a bad guy comes for you.

Tell me what you would do when a mountain lion attacks?

Madison wrote about the necessity of the populace to be armed as another check against the government getting to powerful.

It's one thing for a state to run a background check, but ALL federal gun laws violate the constitution.

I think your forgetting that DaVinci had a model of what would be concidered a forerunner of a machine gun. Thomas Jefferson and Ben Frankilnbeing the inventor they were could see autoweapons coming.

According to Roe v. Wade there is a right to privacy. Gun registration violates that right. While I differ from some gun owners and I believe a felon should never own a firearm because a felon gives up their citizenship. It should be up to the states if they want background checks or not.

Registration makes it easier for the government to seize weapons if the government decides that they want to subjegate the populace. (Again the Federalist Papers)

Answer 4

Because gun control is not about guns, it's about disarming the citizens so they have no way in which to protect themselves. Ask the people of Australia how their ban on guns is going. They will tell you they want them back. Seems the only persons who have guns is the criminals, image that, did they really think criminals would follow the law? Do you? Our forefathers understood things because they fled from being persecuted, a good deterrent from an oppressive government is the citizens ability to arm their selves. Seems to me the law should be every citizen must own a gun. If would sure make the government think twice about entering your home without knocking? It would also make sure they would think twice about sending the military in to take you out and place you in a detention camp. See Hitler disarmed the Germans prior to hauling them off to concentration camps. Not every one at those camps were Jew's. There were Jehovah witness, disable persons, and homosexuals. So do you really want to know why they desire gun control so desperately? Have you not been reading the news for the past six years. Do you not see that this administration is following Hitlers playbook to the tee?

Answer 5

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the populace is armed. Remember the Constitution also says that the people have the right to disband the government if it becomes oppressive. Well, how exactly would we disband an oppressive government, if we had no guns?

The ONLY thing that stops our government from becoming a totalitarian regime, is the 80 million gun owners in the country. Look at other countries that have banned guns like the U.K. and Australia. They are slowly being more oppressed by their governments. What would they do, if their next elected prime minister decided to become a dictator?

If we had no guns, what would we do if Clinton or Bush decided to become a dictator?

Answer 6

I like your question and hope you get some enlightening responses...since I don't see any real arguments so far. Gun control is not disarming the people. I am thinking about getting a gun myself. But why would a civilian need a multi-fire weapon? I've heard arguments for and against the waiting period. But why would you need a gun right away? Hunters usually have trips planned and surely can wait. A person who is looking for protection has a couple of other self-defense options while waiting for their firearm. I would like to see some good reasonable answers.

**Again, controlling guns and banning guns is NOT the same thing, how come the people answering do not understand this?

Answer 7

To answer your question in many ways. First off I would have to ask you what is an "Assault Rifle"?
If you think it is an M-16 or an M-14or perhaps an AK-47. well those are all ready "banned"
If you mean an AR-15 or an AR-10 (the civilian equivalent of the above guns) which were party to the "ban" which took place during the 1990's. Why would you ban them?? I ask because they have been used in crime almost never, T.V. doesn't count, point out three times when the guns that were used in the commission of a crime where these guns and I will be surprised. Second these guns were banned because what they LOOK like,Which is why we call them Politically Incorrect Guns, They are not any more lethal than the guns you use for hunting and in most cases they are much less accurate than a hunting rifle.
I learned how to shoot with a .223 target rifle. the only difference between that gun, and the AR-15 that was banned was COSMETIC, it looked militaristic. It could fire faster, but by not much if you are properly trained. The Media during this ban craze would show a person shooting a FULLY automatic rifle and would then switch to talking about the "Assault Rifle Ban" they shortly after were called to account but only recanted their story in non prime time spots. So the argument about an Assault Rifle Ban is Very disingenuous and false. Not to mention the one shotgun Bill Clinton claimed to use during his hunting trips (obviously trying to get good old boys votes) was on the list for the ban... Ironic???
As for the argument that the Dem's don't want to take all our guns...First off let me tell you some republicans do as well. it isn't just a DEM problem I.E. Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York.
But alot of People do, senator Nancy Pelosi said shortly after the ban of 1994 that if she could have she would have banned all guns from us citizens, and she isn't a nobody, she may be the next speaker of the house. there are many many people who do want to take them away.
As for the "Slippery Slope" or "Starting Point" argument, that is definitely true. When you set the precedence of making little changes it always leads to more. Look at the Brady Campaign and the Brady bill, The minute that was passed they started working on Brady Bill two, all the while saying that this was just one small change. Luckily the people who voted for this bill and the assault rifle ban were voted out of office, or they would have continued, and that is a fact. They still are working on it.
You could also look to the fact that the Most oppressive regimes in the world all do not allow their citizens to own guns... Coincidence?? Also. look to Europe, Poland was disarmed before the invasion, Germans where disarmed before the slaughter of the Jews. The only countries that didn't get invaded by the Nazi's had a well armed society I.E. Switzerland, where it is required that all able bodied men own and can operate a fully automatic M-16. (they also have some of the lowest crime rates)
Add to that, that, of all the wars we've had this century and all the millions of people killed in them, Four times as many people where killed by their own Governments, and all those societies were unarmed.
The last part of your question weather the founding fathers envisioned people owning modern weapons.
It was established first of all not to protect citizens from other citizens (crime) but to protect citizens from the government.
Taking that into consideration, most of the military weapons that were available then were not nearly as deadly as the Civilian owned guns, and they knew it. The most affective portion of our military was the Minute men who where not the professional military but civilians that wanted to fight for their country, they did so with arms and ammunition that far surpassed that of the American military of the time. Which is the same today. The military doesn't have the best equipment when it come to arms, it has the most practical.
Our military doesn't win battles with the pray and spray shooting that you see on T.V. it has the most accurate general enlisted population of any military in the world. Most don't like the full auto capabilities that the M-16 offers, unless they can't hit sh!t.
Also most would tell you that the best military Rifle our military ever had( most accurate and most deadly) was the M1 Garand, (no longer available to the military) which is the exact same thing, other than the magazine/clip, as a .30-06 hunting rifle that I use.
I guaranty that Most people that have spent their lives around guns can out shoot with their civilian guns most general enlisted men with their Military weapons (I'm talking target acquisition as well as accuracy) You could also prove that they are not the problem in society, it is the gangster wannabe some body's that haven't seen a gun their whole life except when they buy one ILLEGALLY or steal one. Taking all of this into account, If most good old boys can out shoot most military personnel with their civilian guns and you could ban a gun because of the hysteria that surrounds certain guns, then what is going to stop the guns that are out preforming military guns of today (which is just about most) from being banned? After all, they ARE more deadly in the right hands.
All that being said. Do I think there should be Background checks? Hell yes and there all ready are. Do I think there should be registration? Hell no!! The first step to confiscation is registration. Take the info above and add the fact that during Hurricane Katrina the New Orleans police had gone house to house to take the guns from law abiding citizens, at the same time allowing multiple rapes murders and looting to take place. Who is going to take care of my family in this case??
The police??The Government??
I urge you to learn Your history and appreciate your heritage.
It shouldn't be a partisen issue to want to protect your family.

Answer 8

i don't think there should be any gun control because i don't believe there should be and guns made available to the public. But since people feel the need to "protect" themselves and there positions with guns in there home. They should be controlled in order to grantee my safety. if you chose to have a gun you should go under a sever check, including a mental analysis. i don't want some racist or sexual predator or even thug walking around with a gun because the government is to scared to go against the N. R. A. Car is 100 less dangerous then a gun and there are 100 more rule and regulations to follow when getting your drivers license. Does that seam right? When it comes to guns in pedestrians homes it think all type of regulations and control are valid. Until all the guns in the world are destroyed ( which will never happen) i think they need to be controlled, otherwise innocent people are put in jeopardy.

Answer 9

UM you are not very smart. The assault rifles are already illegal. I am not apposed to back ground checks or keeping weapons off the street but gun control will not do that. If you cant buy a legal gun then the crooks will buy them illegally. If you were being attacked by a rapist and someone with a " Legal gun" shot him would you tell that person that he was wrong for owning a gun?
Cuz sister that is what Democrat gun control is all about.

Answer 10

WELL some day when america is invaded you will thank your lucky stars i have 3 assault type rifles to defend america.
I do not want a list of any kind kept for gun ownership or registration .IF i buy a gun and sell it and the person after me sells it and it is ever used for a crime .I am contacted as a person of intrest till i provide the name and address of the person i sold it to.
THIS is an invasion of my privacy and should never occur .
RECORDS of teachers priests jews and others have been kept by governments and misused in time of political change and power struggles and the last thing i want is my rights violated by providing a direct trail to me.
I am called a liberal hundreds of times each day .BUT i am after all a conservative who beleives government has no right in my life at all . it is my choice .BUT people tell me when i say its my choice that i have some how become a liberal.GOVERNMENT has no business controling your marraige ,,sexual orientation , or what type of sexual stimulation your sick mind may require to get a nut , and if porn does it for you then it is not governments place to stop you sick perves. I am for freedom which after all is the only thing that gives me the choice not to purchase your garrbage but i protect your freedom to do this because i see a time where fat people will now be forced to diet in order to work in certain jobs just like smokers were forced out 15 years ago by politicians and stupid laws and scare tactics to control america.
FREEDOM is more important then wether or not a porno shop opens in my neighbor hood .IF i have done my job right as a parent then i have nothing to fear from drug dealers cigerrette companys and porn pedelers or the alcohol Co.
bad parenting is being replaced by laws which deny basic freedom of choice and though i disagree with you--- i feel your rights must be safegaurded as well as mine not to particapate in supporting a business which goes against my values .
conservatives wish only to control people and liberals want everyone to choose for them selfs and all i want is the freedom to do both if i so choose .UNSAFE pratices must have some level of control placed on them .i do not want 60, 000 pound dump trucks riding through school zones at 90 miles an hour .IWANT the teachers to be able to teach and not a group of parents or governments telling them what is permissable.