This way we would have "a well regulated mititia" where they could be trained to use the weapon, rather than shoot Bambi, mis fire upon family memebers and friends and the local convience store would patroled by the neighborhood mititia?
2007-04-17 07:24:49 · 11 answers · asked by edubya 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Interesting. At least you're thinking. Bad analogies though. Hunters do take safety courses. Most firearm owners understand the responsibility that goes with firearm ownership. We do not need the government to restrict or enforce more strange laws restricting legal gun ownership. If you haven't figured it out, check out Australia. Some of the stricktest gun control laws in the world, and since being implemented, the rate of gun crime has skyrocketed. Why you might ask>? Legal gun ownership and possesion is basically at zero, there is no deterrent for criminals, who have ILLEGAL weapons. An unarmed populace is easy prey for criminals.
The second ammendment is not a collective right, it's an individual right.
Read the attached links, in the first one, at the end, you can actually read the transcript of the Appeals court ruling. It's really some of the clearest definitions I've seen on what rights are accorded by the Second Ammendment.
2007-04-17 07:48:38 · answer #1 · answered by smatthies65 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You're whole question isn't true. 1. It is legal to hunt with a semi auto 2. A semi auto doesn't do any more damage to an animal than a bolt action does. Caliber determines damage and semi autos usually have much much weaker cartridges than a bolt action does. 3. No, semi autos are not used to only kill people. 95% of guns are semi autos. Some uses: Target shooting, hunting, competition, self defense, etc. 4. "happened 21 long years ago" Does that actually matter? No. 21 years is a very short time. "none of those semi-automatic weapons actually shot anyone" You don't have to shoot someone to stop them. The criminals knew that they could've been killed at any moment and that was enough to stop them. If the Koreans had single shot rifles, then they probably would've been dead. After the criminal sees the Korean reload after every shot, then he would've taken advantage of that. Fire superiority. Less than 1% of military style weapons are used in crime. When crime rate is low, the media sensationalizes the crimes that do happen to make it look like it happens all the time. It is after all, how they make money. Ever notice how crime always happens in areas with strict gun control? Gun control doesn't work. An AWB (Assault Weapons Ban) was put in place from 1994-2004. Banning these "scary" guns did absolutely nothing to help the crime rate, and there were plenty of massacres that happened in that period. (All in "gun free zones" too.) So in short, you have absolutely nothing. Any more stupid questions/statements from you?
2016-05-17 09:15:12 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What would the death toll been if just one student carried a legal gun? One legal gun could have ended this tragedy in it's tracks.
According to even Liberal polls, criminals are not afraid of law enforcement, they are afraid of victims who might be carrying a weapon.
2007-04-17 07:46:28 · answer #3 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sure, and people on welfare should be forced to work for the govt and give up their children, and people who drive cars should be forced to pay directly for the use of highways.
What you said sounds so Socialistic, was it meant to?
2007-04-17 07:34:32 · answer #4 · answered by Edward F 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm in where do I sign up. As long as I have the right to kill any criminals that show up in my neighborhood and not have your liberal justice system put me in jail. I guarantee you if your little gay fantasy came true there would be a hell of a lot less crime in this country.
2007-04-17 07:32:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
You know, that is not a bad idea.
I do believe that out of the mouths of babes come some grea,t reflective, ideas. I will pass this on.
2007-04-17 07:35:47 · answer #6 · answered by reinformer 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You Neo-Socialists are stupid. You know several other great people (that you probably think are swell guys) took firearms away on their rise to power. Hitler, Stalin and Mao took the guns first and then liberty next.
2007-04-17 07:31:12 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Read the MILITIA ACT OF 1787.
We are the militia and so are you.
2007-04-17 07:31:15 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
So you're asking to form vigilante squads?
Interesting concept.
2007-04-17 07:30:28 · answer #9 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
We already pay tons of money for police departments to curb crime. ( fail)
We pay billions of dollars to fight a drug war (fail)
We pay billions of dollars to keep illegals out(fail)
THe average citizen needs to be armed, and should be armed.
2007-04-17 07:31:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋