while it holds an absolute monopoly on the ownership of firearms, but they donb't trust the government enough to monitor telephone calls from the US to known terrorists in other countries?
2006-09-04 04:12:34 · 13 answers · asked by BrianthePigEatingInfidel 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It seems to me the ability of the citizenry to rise up and fight tyranny at home is more important than the ability of some liberal to be able to call his buddy in Tora Bora.
2006-09-04 04:13:50 · update #1
I couldn't agree with you more. They oppose the burning and desecration of the American flag while they also try to take away the second amendment rights from the citizenry. They might well learn a lesson from history which is that the first thing a dictator does is disarm the people. Sounds like the politics of the Democrats.
Chow!!!
2006-09-04 04:20:19 · answer #1 · answered by No one 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The government has not been monitoring calls from "known" terroirists. They are fishing for those calls. No one I know is calling for a ban on all guns. It doesn't help an argument to erect a straw man and then beat the tar out of it. The basis for our system is that the government and the citizenry must follow the rules. If the rule is established that the government can monitor all phone calls in fishing expeditions, then they'll be able to do that. That rule hasn't been established so the government is violating the law.
2006-09-04 04:43:05 · answer #2 · answered by DelK 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
People don't trust the Government enough to limit itself to only monitoring calls to and from known terrorists. The issue is that without a court issuing a warrant and reviewing the wiretapping, there's no way to confirm that the government is doing what it says it is. There is oversight of the Government's activities regarding a monopoly on legal force, there are a variety of Executive agencies and Congressional commitees and a court system to look into that. But who is reviewing the warantless wiretapping of American Citizens? How does anyone know that they are talking to known terrorists?
And very few in the Democratic Party actually want to ban all firearms. They want to restrict and track firearms, it's a big difference. Right now we do a better job of tracking cars and restricting access to cars than we do to guns.
2006-09-04 04:16:47 · answer #3 · answered by Charles D 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Wiretapping of your political opponents very easily produces material you can embarrass them with, not to mention they will have no privacy.
Gun control is aimed at reducing the risk of accidental or intentional shootings between the citizenry. When there are guns around you may pull a gun in the heat of the moment and shoot somebody, what you will not do if only fist fights break out.
2006-09-04 04:23:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is such a myth. Democrats will never or cannot ever ban guns. This is something put out there by the right wing people.
There are too many laws out there pertaining to guns and gun control now that are never enforced.
I am a hard line Democrat and love guns and will never vote for a person who wants all guns taken away from anyone.
2006-09-04 04:23:04 · answer #5 · answered by Malvon L 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
ok, we concede that a number of those weapons at the instant are not likely attack rifles. they seem to be some attack rifles, although, and do shoot many rounds quickly while using extreme potential magazines. human beings be responsive to what they desire banned, in spite of the shown fact that, and notwithstanding you desire to call them, many human beings do not desire AR-15s, Bushmasters, AK-47s and comparable weapons with extreme potential magazines accessible interior the known public. If we call the variations which will only confuse maximum folk. think of up a greater clever term, in case you do unlike attack rifles.
2016-10-01 07:23:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What, you think that if the government sent in the army to oppress it's people, you'd be able to fight them off with your little hand gun? Go into the woods, call yourselves the wolverines? Why is it that conservatives trust their neighbours enough to allow them to have guns, but they don't trust that they're not actually secret terrorists?
2006-09-04 04:48:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
why is it that liberals trust the government with the education of our children? Why is it that liberals trust the government with our retirement? why is it that liberals want to trust the government with health care, when it can't even perform the most basic of its responsibilities: defending our nation's borders? why is it that liberals want to rely on the government to fulfill every need and want in their life? Why is it that the only choice liberals support is the abortion of 2.5 million babies, but not choice in education, retirement savigs, health care, etc? Only liberal morons know.
2006-09-04 04:18:31 · answer #8 · answered by Racist Beaner 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I guess they like the thought of only bad people having guns.You can pass every law you want to banning guns, but bad people will always have them.When all the bad people give up their gun's, i will give mine up.
2006-09-04 04:20:28 · answer #9 · answered by itsallover 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
the lying left picks and chooses what rights they want banned as long as it doesn't affect them
2006-09-04 04:53:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋