Public would you agree to it?
As in take away your guns.
Law enforcement and military not affected.
2006-09-21 05:36:11 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
Personally I vehemently discourage the citizens of the U.S to support extreme gun control like this.
In Australia, following a dubiously investigated massacre in Port Authur, Tasmania extreme gun laws were passed through disarming the public of Australia.
The man who allegedly was guilty of murdering 17 people was intellectually impaired. His mental capacity was of an 8 year old. The accuracy and efficiency of the gunman showed that a person with special forces training could only execute such deadly precision. Martin Bryant(the accused, who now rots in jail for ten years thus far)vehemently denied all charges against him.
"Patsy"? I believe so.
They said these laws would reduce gun related homicides, suicides, armed robbery, shootings etc.
The not so funny thing is these have all risen and the average Australian is less safe than ever.
Remember, your government doesn't always have your best interests in mind.
2006-09-21 05:56:11 · update #1
Once again the same lies about my country (Australia). Guns weren't in wide circulation (1% of households, mainly farmers) before the laws in the late 90's which restricted semi-automatic weapons (to reduce massacres by sociopaths). And crime rate have NOT gone up since. The conspiracy theory I won't bother with cos it's obviously unhinged.
Other than to correct the misinformation about my country (please check the links), it's not my debate.
2006-09-23 05:29:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
that my friend would never happen n it would only cause more illegal gun running in USA.it seems the criminals has more access on the streets to guns than the non criminals do buying them from stores.in these days n times some law enforcement ppl r just as criminal as the criminals.n that goes for military personnel too.here in my town the state police had to take over the local police department because of criminal activity within the police force.its a sad situation.this would be a controversial legislation...im afraid someone would try to kill George Bush if he tried that.i dont think hes that crazy...i myself dont like guns but theres alot of other that do.what he needs to do is put thru legislation to stop drug trafficking n drug dealing n using illegal drugs n give them the death penalty if caught with illegal drugs...thats my opinion.that would stop alot of crimes.the saying now is drugs can kill...pass that new law with the death penalty drugs will get u killed if convicted of any kind of possession or distribution..
2006-09-21 12:59:27 · answer #2 · answered by purrdykitten2003 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, Canada has very strict gun control, it didn't stop that college from getting shot up, now did it? Gun control will not work because the criminals will still be able to get guns, whereas lawabiding citizens will not. That would victimize all of us in the long run. Dumbest thing I've ever heard of.
2006-09-22 15:03:27 · answer #3 · answered by Kris B 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Have you read any of the commentary concerning the constitutional convention? The original one? The purpose of guaranteeing the right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect us from the government. I would have no problem having stricter controls on hand guns. These obviously aren't the type of weapons one defends against military usurpation with. They are the kind of weapons which cause a large percentage of accidental deaths, and crime.
2006-09-21 12:41:26 · answer #4 · answered by toff 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
thank God I live in Texas were we sighed on with the union under a peace treaty if our goverment does that I will probable be living in the United States of Texas and unfortunately the government can amend the Bill Of Rights they do it all the time in little ways we just do not realize it our goverment is slowly taking away our rights hell we can not even say what we really mean anymore and freedom of speach is supose to be a fundimental right too think about it
2006-09-22 14:49:35 · answer #5 · answered by prissymiss1968 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
George Bush would never put through that type of legislation because he is pro-gun. It's the liberals you need to worry about. Remember that come election time!
2006-09-21 12:40:26 · answer #6 · answered by luvdatbeard 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He would never do that. He is a conservative and conservatives support taking up arms. He would be more likely to hand out guns to Americans than take them away.
2006-09-21 12:38:23 · answer #7 · answered by *Cara* 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
First off this President would never even consider taking our guns from us, whether we agree or not. Americans will never ever agree to lose our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. I would pity the fool that would take this one on,
2006-09-22 15:03:36 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO absolutely not!
The problem isn't with the general public owning guns. It is with the criminals owning them, we have laws in place we just need to enforce them!
Take away the guns and only criminals and terrorists will have them!
2006-09-21 12:37:51 · answer #9 · answered by True Blue 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, and he's not likely to. Liberals are more likely to take gun control to the extreme.
2006-09-21 12:38:24 · answer #10 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋