FWIW federal law already regulates the ownership of automatic firearms so that is a straw-man argument. Assault rifles are functionally nothing more than semi-automatic hunting rifles with improved ergonomics for better handling and safety. What does a bayonet lug do? It allows for the attachment of a bayonet, which I've never heard of being used in a crime ("Local store owner robbed at bayonet-point" bwahaha); it's a last ditch effort to win a fight in combat. What does a flash hider do? It keeps the shooter from blinding himself while shooting so he doesn't shoot something other than his intended target (a Good Thing). The federal regulations we have in place are sufficient, thanks. We do NOT need more gun laws.
If anything, the federal government ought to take the proper steps to prevent individual states from passing gun laws that clearly violate the provision of the second ammendment. What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand? Anyone who thinks it so unreasonable that combat could someday come to us on American soil is badly misinformed at best, and criminally negligent at worst. Political gun-control is nothing more than victim disarmament.
I certainly would never advocate that everyone be required to own a firearm. That's a serious responsibility that only the mentally prepared should undertake. But I do not think it is in anyone's best interest to deprive me of the means of defending myself, my family, my country, and YOU in case of unprovoked attack. In short, YOU are safer because I am armed, and I am ready to do violence upon those who would harm you.
2007-02-27 09:01:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by littleman77y 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
There were people in the old days who owned artillery. It was legal to own "full-auto" machine guns (a redundancy) without a license into the 30's and I don't believe a licensed one has ever been used in a crime. Up until 1968 one could purchase arms through the mail, and despite every new restriction on our rights the criminal element has continued to break the laws because that is what they do.
"Gun control" in the form of laws & regs that impose upon the honest citizens only serve to condition them towards a subject state and make things easier for the criminal element, whether in the from of governmental abusers or free-lancers.
I'm in my mid-40-s, grown up on a farm and having lived in the city for the past 20 years. My race shouldn't matter but I'm of European descent as far as I know and I'm of the male persuasion.
2007-03-01 16:31:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Will A 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am against Gun Control.
I am a female, a mother
and I have a God given right to protect myself and my family.
I believe in Firearm education. When NJ instituted Hunter education the amount of accidents dropped to approx 240 over a 15 year period.
Gang Violence- Suicide, and uncontrollable anger are serious problems that need to be addressed at their core level not with a band aid solution such as Gun control.
Gun Control is racist and it hurts poor black / Hispanic people who can not afford the registration fee, expensive firearms and do not have a police force that is receptive to their needs
2007-03-02 04:07:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by Elizabeth J777 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm for gun control in the same way as Pilgrim above. Have a gun, know what it does, and how to do it properly, then use it wisely if at all and cause no collateral damage.
As for politicos telling me whether I can have a gun, what I can have, and where and how I can have it and carry it and whatnot, I'm definitely against.
I'm white, male, and adult. For the record, I am not a US citizen, and envy Americans their relative freedom to own and carry arms, which tells you the sorry state of things at home.
2007-02-26 09:50:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Svartalf 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Against. A totally unarmed population is a population that is easily subjugated by armed criminals, or a government which wishes to have complete control. Also- interestingly, the country with the highest per capita gun ownership in the world also has one of the lowest crime rates (that country would be Switzerland, where nearly every man and woman in the the country has their own firearm). So the thought that guns cause crime is proven time and time again in Switzerland to be false.
2007-02-26 09:48:15
·
answer #5
·
answered by bmwdriver11 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think gun control in CA is way to stick and people need to realize the people that are going to use guns in a crime can get them no matter what. Guns are fun in a range or on private property. The ones that use them for fun should not have all these restrictions.
White/ male/ 23
2007-02-26 09:50:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by Bizzle 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'm very much in favor of gun control. That's why I bought a laser sight and get to the range as often as possible. I want to be sure that when I have to use my gun, I'll be in complete control.
I'm a white male adult.
.
2007-02-26 09:45:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by s2scrm 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I am against gun control. Honest tax paying citizens are being made out to be criminals while felons can get guns almost at will. Look at what happened in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina. Mayor Nagen had the guns of honest citizens confiscated while roving gangs were stealing guns from gun stores. (Mayor Nagen has been found in contempt of court for not returning confiscated guns to their owners.)
In countries like Australia and the UK where most private gun ownership is prohibited, the crime rate is very high. Criminals know that they can steal, rape or kill with minimal risk.
The District of Columbia has very strict gun control and one of the highest crime rates in the country. Florida allows its citizens concealed carry permits and has a very low crime rate. So, one must conclude that "gun control" only serves criminals, not honest citizens.
"Gun Control" only makes it easier for criminals to commit felonies without the fear of being shot or killed by a citizen defending his legally owned property.
2007-03-02 02:46:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by Howell S 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Against. "Gun Control" is a phrase used by statists who fear an armed citizenry. Every genocide of the last 150 years was proceeded by some form of "weapon control' legislation which legislation aided the legislating government in it's later genocidal efforts.
The ongoing Darfur genocide is a perfect example of this issue of genocide arising from gun control, Darfurians are prohibited easy access to weaponry, while the Jangaweed terrorists are being supplied by Sudanese government sources.
2007-03-01 03:29:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by Larry 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your asking the wrong person BUT here is my answer......
I am against gun control to a certain extent. I myself have 4 rifles 1double barrel shot gun, 2 3006's, 1 revolutionary war rifle my husbands pride and joy, and 1 hand gun. I'm against anything higher than that. Any automatic guns or assault rifles are totally out of my book.
2007-02-26 09:57:33
·
answer #10
·
answered by butterfly 2
·
0⤊
0⤋