English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

could you please explain why?

2006-11-07 07:37:37 · 14 answers · asked by SOCALVIC 2 in Politics & Government Law Enforcement & Police

14 answers

I am as opposed to gun control as anyone could possibly be. I do however think there should some restraint on not what types of guns you can own, but on who can own them. I like how that part currently is, ie. No violent felonies, No one under 18, And must be a citizen.

The Constitution says, " The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED". Therefore any control over what types of guns you can legally own is un-Constitutional, therefore illegal. People say if you are not apart of a militia you have no right to own a firearm, they are wrong! The militia the founding fathers are talking about is an armed nation of Americans. Like in Switzerland, most men over 18 are apart of the national militia and are REQUIRED to own military style weaponry, unlike America where you are considered a maniac to own an AK-47 or M-16, which I have civilian versions of both.

I found a picture that I really like http://www.haz-matt.com/pics/second%2520amendment%2520primer%25202%2520web.gif , I like how it says, "When they tell you you don't need it, is when you need it most".

Why I support very loose laws concerning Gun Ownership so much is because when the government starts banning different types of firearms, what's to stop them from banning another, then another, until there's nothing left to defend ourselves but .22 rifles. The Second Amendment is meant to have the people armed to defend themselves against tyranny. To be adequately prepared to fight off a tyrannous government or an invading army we would have to be at the very least equally armed as they are. That means have more civilian access to fully-automatic military arms, not just semi-automatic copies.

2006-11-07 10:00:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Against gun control. Any control against guns will only be practice by law abiding citizens, the bad guys will always find ways and means to obtain and use guns. What the US need is strict enforcement and hard time penalties for law breakers with guns.

2006-11-07 07:43:07 · answer #2 · answered by me_worry? 4 · 3 0

SNOWEY From AUSTRALIA I am 63 EX MILITARY I have not fired a shot since retiring from the Military I WOULD NOT GIVE UP MY ARMS DUE TO THE FOLLOWING EXPLANATION When our government called in all Guns I thought this was to PROTECT the People but since becoming concerned about what is going on in the world and our country (THE WORLD ORDER CONTROL:) I now realise this was to take away arms so as that when the people rise up against them they will have no Arms and can be easily dealt with POWERS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD ONLY WANT SLAVES ,(whether you want to believe it or not you are a slave untill you do somthing about your enslavers) The Government Media, Politicians Judiciary and the Legal Fraternity are all UNDER CONTROL and if you have the WILL to stand up to them THEY WILL DEAL WITH YOU My WEBSITE when i can get someone to do it for me www.snowey.com.au My Email bob_a_lob_au@yahoo.com.au

2006-11-07 09:15:55 · answer #3 · answered by bob_a_lob_au 1 · 0 0

Most of them got it right, the more you control guns the more law abiding citizens will be unarmed. The bad thing is that if you are a law abidind citizen you will follow the rules and end up having no way to protect you or your family. If guns were outlawed only outlaws would have them.

Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

2006-11-07 08:41:27 · answer #4 · answered by Michael R 3 · 1 0

Against Gun Control, generally, and within reason. Also, firearms are protected in the Bill of Rights. If you can get around that, why not get around the Freedom of Speach? No difference.

2006-11-07 07:45:27 · answer #5 · answered by sjsosullivan 5 · 0 0

Against it. When Texas and Florida reduced the amount of gun control they had, the crime rates DROPPED by over 40%. When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

2006-11-07 07:40:37 · answer #6 · answered by Spirit Walker 5 · 3 0

im against gun control that takes away citizens rights to hunt, shot for sport and have protection.

2006-11-07 07:44:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Against. A gun is inanimate, it does nothing on its own. Put blame where it belongs, on the criminal, NOT THE GUN.

2006-11-07 08:35:07 · answer #8 · answered by WC 7 · 0 0

I'm for gun control. It's a bit different out there than it was in the late 1700's. We need common sense controls to protect society as a whole. Assault weapons should be banned from the general public. Cops don't have them, so citizens shouldn't.

2006-11-07 07:40:11 · answer #9 · answered by Cool-K 3 · 0 4

for,we need stricter laws so they don't get into wrong hands.more law enforcement are being killed everyday due to criminals & children getting a hold of these weapons.think back to colunbine and other schools where there are innocent victims most no longer with us. this enrages me .they have to find a solution to this keeping illegal weapons from getting into the wrong hands.competency test,stricter prison term laws the 1st time.their are responsible people out there that this will effect but has to be done.

2006-11-07 07:54:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers