Firearms provide us with protection and in the country where I live, that is very important as we have illegal drug dealers bringing drugs across the border and everyday dangers such as mountain lion or bears. So what do the liberals have against firearms?
2007-03-20 16:45:42 · 20 answers · asked by Stud Quarterback 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
most libs do hate guns and to the libs on here that say they don't just read the answers from other libs on here look at California it is a very liberals state and they have the most gun laws and they ban lots of guns and to the lib that said you cant hunt in Boston who said anything about hunting what about self defense the cops cant help you when somebody is trying to rob you by the time they get there its all over so i carry a concealed weapon and i have a permit for it and to the libs that say republicans don't read the 1st part of the 2nd amendment yes we do a militia is just a group of citizen and to the libs that say we don't need machine guns i think the public should be able to have any kind of gun and I'm glad i have a automatic weapon to protect my home and my life
2007-03-20 17:27:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
You are making generalizations there, sparky. How do you know all liberals are against firearms? You don't. Firearms have a place in our world. Hunting and home protection are two very good reasons for owning a firearm. Target shooting is another. As long as they are used responsible most people I know have no objection to them.
2007-03-20 17:11:28 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
Wow, what prejudices!
More innocent people are killed by gun owners than by robbers, etc. Those places that control guns have lower murder rates than we do. The false issue of disarming the public always cites countries where dictatorships always ruled and the public was used to following - Germans owned lots of hunting guns. In the event of a war/takeover, it is easy to get guns - you knife or garrott someone with a gun and take it - see France in WWI.
Why do conservatives ignore the first part of the second amendment and thus fail to demand militia training for all gun owners? And the Militia law of 1777 required everyone to keep 10 pounds of powder and 4 pounds of musket balls in their homes. Lets enforce that.
When someone invades a place with lots of guns, like a police station, it becomes clear that having lots of guns doesn't stop the killing and rarely gets the perp on the site.
Why do you have to own a machine gun in your circumstance, and if you don't, why does the NRA demand that these and other unlimted fire guns be legal and unregistered?
2007-03-20 17:02:07 · answer #3 · answered by Mike1942f 7 · 3⤊ 6⤋
If more firearms made for a safer society that is lower on crime due to the deterrent of every citizen possibly possessing a gun, then it follows that unsafe nations with the highest crime rates must have the fewest guns per capita. Essentially, that's the argument that I hear from most opponents of gun control.
Not all crime or gun-related crime results in a death. But enough to consider the following comparison.
According to the World Bank and the Center for Disease Prevention and Control, there are 14.24 gun-related deaths (covering accidents, murders, and suicides) per 100,000 residents in the United States. This is tops out of the 36 wealthiest nations in the world; Japan fell last at 0.05 gun-related deaths per 100,000 residents.
I don't have the empirical research to back this next part up, but I suspect that there are more firearms per capita in the US than in Japan. However, I could be proven wrong on that one.
The bottom line is that firearms don't make society any safer. They're useful for hunters and farmers; if that's your activity, fine. But neither requires semiautomatic handguns or assault rifles.
There are reasons for having a gun, but in general, personal safety is not one of them.
2007-03-20 17:23:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 7⤋
the main editor of Outdoor Life magazine was fired because he made comments and lost advertisers (a outdoor foods maker and a rifle maker). He basically said the semi-auto AK47 was ridiculous...it was not a hunting rifle...and really served no purpose...He had been editor in chief for about 30 years...I am a Liberal and I own guns...hunting rifles....i am very pro Constitution on this, but I'm unwilling to support laser sight hand guns or assault rifle ownership...they are made to kill people and nothing more...i can kill someone with my 270, but I only get 5 shots
2007-03-20 17:39:56 · answer #5 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 0⤊ 7⤋
Today's liberals follow the socialist playbook. Disarming the population is essential if you hope to install a socialist government some day. An armed populace are tigers. An unarmed populace are sheep. Which are easier to control?
2007-03-20 16:50:56 · answer #6 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 7⤊ 3⤋
Its in their nature to try to right every wrong, thinking that you control the firearm, you control it from the wackos that use them illegally, not realizing that they just find another means and legislation just make it more of a problem for law abiding citizens.
2007-03-20 16:50:14 · answer #7 · answered by onlinedreamer 3 · 6⤊ 3⤋
Nothing, got my first rifle at 9
2007-03-20 18:01:18 · answer #8 · answered by 76tb97t6ht 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
The word Liberal is grossly misinterpretted. I know some liberals who own guns. Liberal means the desire to have an evolving government where human equality and rights are the dominant goals.
2007-03-20 16:53:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 6⤋
To take away guns from law abiding citizens and so drug runners and criminals can reek havoc on society!
All in the name of civil rights....
Also, they'd like to see gun control laws in every state, thereby making it all the more easier.
2007-03-20 16:58:37 · answer #10 · answered by Incognito 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋