what do you think a liberal gun control freak says when a criminal shoves one in his face?

Answer 1

OH,SH_T !!

Answer 2

I wish I could sit with you for a few hours and discuss this at length with you. You REALLY have a gross mistaken notion about guns.

First, all Communist countries, Fascist countries, oppressive countries past and present outlaw guns to control and herd the citizens and commit human rights abuses and untold atrocities and tortures without the fear of armed realization. This also happens whenever a government gets too powerful, by the way. We are guaranteed this Right in the 2nd Amendment for a reason: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "militia" referred here are citizens that are armed.

The rich and powerful are the ones that would want the general public not to have guns and rifles... so they can continue to usurp power and control over the government (as they control and influence the elected puppets). They are the ones that most to fear. They are the ones that started this campaign against the public with weapons. Don't be mistaken on this issue. If YOU don't want to carry or have a weapon, that is entirely YOUR decision but do not take it away from me or my daughter to defend ourselves.

You complain about the criminals with guns? Get rid of the criminals! They have no business with guns. But, wait... what happened when they outlawed guns and rifles in Australia? Overnight the crime rates mushroomed, the house invasions and burglaries tripled or quadrupled, rapes went up, robberies, murders, etc. Because the "bad" guys knew that the other person didn't have anything to defend his home, him/herself with.

Why don't you push for legislation to hold gun/rifle manufacturers accountable for the surplus of weapons that find their way into the streets and into the hands of criminals... or blame the unscrupulous gun-dealer who breaks the law and sells to anyone with money!

Oh, accidental shootings? Isn't it a strange coincidence that children that grow up handling guns never have an accident with a gun or a rifle? Ignorance and stupidity kills, not guns (ask V.P. Cheney). Go to a gun show and see how weapons are handled by force of habit by those who own guns, rifles, etc., without exception! You've been watching too many anti-gun ads or too many movies...

Those kids that go into schools and go into a shooting rampage and kill...? If they hadn't had the guns/rifles, they would've gone in with bombs. Don't you think they would've found a way to kill and maim?

Have you ever come across an abusive or disrespectful police officer? That's because he/she knows you ain't got a gun and he does. The minute he knows that you are his equal, he FINDS manners and respect! "God did not make men equal; Samuel Colt did."

I can really continue but you'd be bored. Think twice before you blame the right to bear arms and confuse it with a criminal and an illegal weapon. One is not the same as the other. If the criminal didn't have the gun, he'd have a knife or a machete or a sharpened screwdriver or a hammer... and would cause more harm than he would with the gun!

Oh, yes, I disarmed a kid who shoved a gun in my face when I was 18. I also disarmed a crazed man who shot and killed his half-brother and shot his common-law wife three times, and he tried to shoot me because I prevented him from putting a bullet in the woman's head (I was 41 back then); I forced the gun into his face and he shot part of his eyebrow off. He had an illegal gun and he would not have gotten a legal gun if he had tried to get one.

Don't do away with the RIGHT to bear arms; do away with criminals and illegal weapons!

Answer 3

Hey good morning Shirazzz!
Had your coffee yet?

What is your definition of "gun control"?
I believe everybody would be for keeping guns out of criminals or lunatics hands. Even conservatives.
Take for example James Brady, the press secretary for your hero Ronald Reagan. He is for gun control ... so is Nancy Reagan. I don't think they are liberals.

Law abiding citizens should have the right to purchase legitimate weapons. I see no legitimate private use for automatic weapons, grenade launchers, stinger missiles etc - unless you are a terrorist.

I have had a gun shoved in my face by a crazy alcoholic Korean woman I used to work with. It wasn't pleasant. I asked her what kind of pistol it was. She calmed down, put the weapon away & started talking. After I left the room I had her arrested.

Answer 4

Did you know that in countries where there are stronger gun control laws, that there is less of a chance you will be held at gun point? If the criminals can't get guns, then everyone is safer (even if you don't get to keep a gun under your pillow at night).

Oh, and again, not being American, believing in gun control doesn't make me a liberal (and I may not be conservative either).

Answer 5

I had one shove in my face and it was not a criminal It was a out of control armored car driver that was mad but not at me thy said it was a good thing that i did not carry a gun because something bad would have happen

Answer 6

Have you ever a had a gun shoved in your face? You spend most of those seconds trying to remember to breathe.

Answer 7

Depends how wealthy the liberal gun control freak is. I mean folks like Oprah, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, et. al. all have armed personal body guards. They will never admit to either one, being wealthy or having an armed guard, but they are, and they do.

Just some more of being a two-faced liberal in America today.

Answer 8

in simple terms in countries like the u . s . and Brazil (culturally) ought to it reason an important problem, and in no way remedy something. because you all love your guns, so quite some human beings ought to keep them. that ought to advise that "criminals" like petty thieves (you recognize, minor criminals who dismiss the regulation yet ought to in no way deliberately plan to homicide someone) ought to have guns. And once you've a gun, you're one hundred% more beneficial likely to apply it than once you do not. In countries with diverse cultures, the in simple terms those with guns are hunters and purpose shooters, besides as, for sure, troublesome-criminals. yet with those in a tiny minority of the inhabitants, oftentimes suitable to gangs, drugs, and so on., it in basic terms signifies that those human beings and factors must be policed with Armed officials fairly than in basic terms typical Police devoid of guns. the position I stay guns are unlawful (Thank god) and maximum criminals don't have them both. at times human beings get shot for no reason. ought to maximum human beings that're shot in the united kingdom are in touch with drugs or prostitution, and performance pissed off some troublesome criminal who's prepared to homicide them. one difficulty is certain although: even as typical human beings bypass loopy, they do drastic issues. in the united kingdom, they could attack someone in the line, stress recklessly, and so on. in the u . s . they bypass in to some progression and shoot some dozen human beings. and that i recognize which one i ought to choose. yet you're excellent in some approaches. in the u . s . i doubt gun illegalisation ought to paintings besides because it does the following. in the united kingdom, in basic terms possessing a gun is a criminal offence (except you go by each and each of the legal technique), wearing a gun is against the law, using a gun that's not yours to shoot something, and so on. So for sure there are more beneficial gun-suitable arrests. yet over 6 situations fewer shootings.

Answer 9

Gross generalization. I am not a gun control freak.

Answer 10

he hands over his wallet, loses whatever money he had in it and maybe his car, and both parties go on living... is it preferable that one or both should die?

Answer 11

i forgive you.the idiots