2006-11-15 09:06:30 · 15 answers · asked by Ron Paul Republican 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I believe that gun control is the last step toward tyranny.
2006-11-15 09:11:38 · update #1
wi saint.
Does an armed government still fear the armed population if the armed population only own .22s.
2006-11-15 09:25:26 · update #2
Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot all loved gun control. It's easier to slaughter millions of your own people when they have no means to fight back.
Anyone that supports gun control in the US is either a fool who has failed to learn from history or agrees with the tyrants listed above.
2006-11-15 09:16:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you that the ONLY thing a government fears is an intelligent AND armed population.
I believe that everyone should be able to own,possess and bear arms.
I can see a need for SOME limits, but who is to say where to draw the line. Limits for law abiding citizens? A law abiding citizens doesn't need a Uzi, and limits for those that are not law abiding? What does that mean? Just more ink on a piece of paper.
I believe that if everyone had the ability to carry a weapon, then the rate of violent crime would fall to almost non-existent.
2006-11-15 09:20:52 · answer #2 · answered by wi_saint 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gun control takes the guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals have already shown they could careless about the law. If the law abiding citizens having weapons created more lawlessness Switzerland would have the highest crime rate.
Controlling the weapons in the hands of citizens makes it appear the liberals are attempting to do something about crime when in fact they are making it easier for the criminal. If the criminal is the only one with a weapon (s)he is safe to be a criminal.
2006-11-15 09:16:31 · answer #3 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Whoever has a gun should be able to control themselves in the operation, maintenance, care and utilization of it. Secondly, if you commit the crime with a gun, then society has to be adament about the perpatrator doing the time WITH NO PAROLE regardless of the cost to society and if that crime results in injury or death, then 'throw away the key'.
2006-11-15 09:10:16 · answer #4 · answered by goldmedaldiver 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The undesirable men desire unarmed sufferers!!. while seconds rely calling 911 and asking the undesirable guy to attend isn't a accessible selection. greater proper to have a gun and not choose it than to choose it and not have it!!! **Police do no longer shield you from crime, they often only look at the crime after it happens.**
2016-10-15 14:31:15 · answer #5 · answered by witek 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When i go to a shooting range, i can get 10 out of 10 bullets to hit the bull's eye!
That's what i call GUN CONTROL!
2006-11-15 15:00:57 · answer #6 · answered by hq3 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes for civillians; no for the police force an the military. They cant seize yer guns if YOU have guns, heh heh. (But officially, I'm against gun control.)
2006-11-15 09:08:36 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There's a saying that I firmly believe in....
If guns are outlawed only outlaws wills have guns!
2006-11-15 09:14:44 · answer #8 · answered by chefzilla65 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I chose to get a license, own, and carry a firearm for my protection, and to have one for the protection of my home. It is my constitutional right.
2006-11-15 09:09:34 · answer #9 · answered by Sparkles 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
gun control in my mind means squeeze slowly while you have target acquisition
2006-11-15 09:20:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋