It seems like whenever a law regarding guns passes, many from the gun lobby protest. Do you own a gun, and do you support gun control laws?
2006-09-05 06:18:24 · 21 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I don't support any gun control laws, at least federal gun laws because it violates the intent, the wording, and the spirit of the constitution. Gun control laws are passed by people that know nothing about firearms, but think that they are superior to those who elected them so they ignore the will of the people.
Gun control is really little more than an effort to subjugate the populace.
Gun control has little or no effect keeping bad guys from committing crimes or having firearms. In fact if the firearm is ripped from law-abiding citizen's hands making them more vulnerable to someone who is better armed.
In my state, we are more apt to be attacked by animals than criminals because there is a good possibility that their "victim" will be armed. The last murder in this town was perpetrated by a kitchen knife. Gun are an equalizer if the law abiding citizen trains.
2006-09-05 17:57:03 · answer #1 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I own guns and I do not support gun control laws.
The only guns controlled by those idiotic pieces of legislation are legal guns. Most were passed to outlaw an action that was already unlawful. Case in point: A man entered a school yard and started shooting kids with a semi-automatic rifle. The response was to outlaw semi-automatic rifles. Does that mean that entering a school yard and killing kids with a semi-automatic rifle was legal before the new law was enacted? I don't think so.
Criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. So how in the world does passing yet another law do anything constructive? The Second Amendment ends with the words "shall not be infringed". That means limited or made more difficult. Only a very naive person could be made to believe criminals can be controlled with laws. It requires police, jails, prisons, and execution chambers. A killing spree is ended forever at the end of needle.
When the American public is disarmed, and it will happen, will you fear the criminal, the police or the military the most. "Locate and confiscate all privately owned firearms". A position common to Hitler, and Stalin, see how well that worked for the people.
This is a very open ended question. Send your email to my profile and I will provide more if you are interested.
Final thought:
An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject, and a disarmed man is a prisoner.
2006-09-05 06:41:17 · answer #2 · answered by gimpalomg 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I own guns, I use them for hunting and shooting. I have owned guns since I was 9 years old and none of my guns has ever shot a human. I think that responsible ownership of guns is ok as it is. I do not think a person needs a functional ak47 in their gun collection to make it whole, they really do not need a 9mm with the capacity to go to war. But if you start restricting these guns it does indeed take you down a slippery slope. I think there are enough laws on the books to punish bad gun use and those if enforced would take care of the problem.
2006-09-05 06:55:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I own several guns, and while I agree with certain gun laws I disagree with most of laws proposed by the liberals. The NRA and other pro-firearm groups usually protest against any restriction on the use/possession of guns on principle. The rationale is if they let one new rule go through, it'll be that much easier for the next rule to go through, and the next, and the next, and before you know it the Second Amendment is gone. My belief is that the rules on the books right now are sufficient; they just need to be enforced more strictly and people need to be held accountable for their misuse of firearms.
It's no secret that the liberals want to eliminate the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms, and that is another prime example of the idiocy of their own ideology -- if you take the guns away, who will have them? Three groups: (1) Criminals -- which the liberals LOVE to coddle, (2) Law enforcement -- which the liberals are always bashing for excessive use of force, and (3) The military -- which is the liberals' Public Enemy Number One. By making it that much harder for citizens to keep and bear arms, the liberals are making it that much easier for the military and law enforcement to become the ruling class. Hey, if those of us who wear the uniform are the only ones with the guns, what's to stop us from shooting all the criminals, taking their guns, and declaring a state of martial law?
P.S.: I can't remember the name of the county in upstate New York that has the lowest crime rate in the nation, but I do remember that over 80% of its residents own licensed firearms. Think about it -- would you try to break in to a house if you knew the owner was packing?
2006-09-05 06:28:55 · answer #4 · answered by sarge927 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Usually not. There are some gun control laws that some do...but personally I do not.
If you have ever read the preamble to the bill of rights, or thought about the laws in a serious sense, all you get by requiring registration, or making guns all out illegal, is a list of law abiding citizens, or in the latter, only the criminals have guns.
If you read the preamble to the bill of rights, it's pretty obvious why guns are nessecary for a free state.
2006-09-05 07:28:47 · answer #5 · answered by cat_Rett_98 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I own a gun. But the lawmakers never pass any laws that really involve gun control. Gun control means you hit what you aim at. Screw all the new "gun control" laws and just enforce the existing laws that are on the books.
2006-09-05 06:30:07 · answer #6 · answered by namsaev 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, I own a gun. There were very few gun laws in the US before the last century. People weren't going beserk with guns, contrary to Hollywood. Look at the places that pass the most restrictive gun laws and you will see crime increase dramatically after. Canada,Australia, England, Chicago, New York, New Orleans and Washington DC are good examples. Crime actually decreases in places that pass right to carry laws. The news just doesn't report on the hundreds of citizens who protect themselves with guns. Criminals are rightfully afraid of guns. The number one right to every law abiding citizen should be self preservation.
2006-09-05 06:45:32 · answer #7 · answered by We are doomed! 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I do own guns. I do not support additional gun control laws. Such laws only hinder a law-abiding citizen's ability to acquire guns. Criminals will get guns through illegal channels, in full violation of the law.
Any laws pertaining to gun ownership should only bolster a citizen's ability to purchase and own, or even carry. Laws are supposed to protect citizens and society, not attack them.
Full enforcement of existing laws, as well as zero tolerance for commission of violent crime, is the best course of action. Further gun control laws will not make anyone safer, nor deter criminals.
2006-09-05 07:07:21 · answer #8 · answered by Dewhitewolf 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't support gun laws. Laws are for the law abiding. People that commit armed robbery don't give a ratsass about laws and I want to make sure that a shop owner would have access to a gun to prevent the robbery.
2006-09-05 06:27:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You ever bought a gun from a dealer? Ya gotta go through a background check. The people that say they want to get rid of "cheap" guns (aka saturday night special), they really want to take away guns that are affordable to poor people. This idea is racially based. Poor people have a right to defend themselves too. That and the right to keep and bear automobiles isn't in the constitution.
2016-03-26 23:07:37 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋