The Democrats should lead a movement to rid the nation of automatic weapons and Republicans. Both are a danger to our society. One kills, the other creates massive deficits then wish to pass bonds for the rich to finance the defecits. The poor get to pay back the bonds. We need President Pelosi to right the course of the nation. 2 resignations will solve our problems.
2007-04-18 17:18:40 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
As a democrat let me just say two parties are needed in order to keep each other in check. One of two things happen when there are balances. Either they parties work together to get things accomplished such as in the Clinton Adminstration, or we end up with a lame duck congress where nothing gets accomplish. However nothing getting accomplished is better then run away spending.
As for banning automatic weapons, criminals will still get them on the black market. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it not obtainable.
2007-04-18 17:41:03 · answer #1 · answered by wondermom 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO automatic weapons were used in this horrible event.
Since those 32 people were MURDERED (about 2 1/2 days), over 300 Americans have DIED in car crashes, and over 7,000 more have been seriously injured. Is it time to get rid of the automobile???
2007-04-19 00:31:33 · answer #2 · answered by Doctor J 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't vote against gun rights. Controlling the use of guns only controls the people who follow the law. You'd be taking guns away from people who use them for recreation (hunting), the people who use them as a safety precaution, etc... The people who use them for other means (such as the VTech incident) would manage to find guns no matter. Or they'd use something equally as dangerous. They're obviously desperate enough/ resourceful enough to get what they want when they've made up their minds.
As for your statement of "rid[ding] the nation of...Republicans" - this seems a bit ignorant and restricting. I'm sorry you can't appreciate other people's opinions and that you're less democratic than you'd like others to believe.
2007-04-19 00:27:24 · answer #3 · answered by s16t18 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
#1 How would you "get rid of automatic weapons"? As long as they are being manufactured anywhere in the world, people will get them.
#2 Do you think that people who presently own automatic weapons will give them up just because there is a law against them?
2007-04-19 00:38:39 · answer #4 · answered by timmn 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
What color crack are you smoking? The guy used two semiautomatic pistols(a 9mm and a .22) with 10-round clips. The shooter had NO AUTOMATIC WEAPONS, so why are you making this an issue?
Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have them. You expect criminals to turn in their firearms alongside innocent law-abiding citizens? Is the Tooth Fairy still real for you?
2007-04-19 00:24:16 · answer #5 · answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Automatic weapons are against the law for common citizens to hold unless you have a class III weapons license. This crime was not committed with an automatic weapon.
2007-04-19 00:23:28 · answer #6 · answered by trigunmarksman 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
That's exactly why guns should not be banned if they were more liberal ,and some one else had one they probably could have stopped him before so many people had been killed .Like all the laws to restrict guns as in this case .Some one intent on killing people as this guy, is going to get guns one way or another .The only people that doesn't have them are law abiding citizens .Who are defenseless to protect themselves or of any way to stop him
2007-04-19 00:45:05 · answer #7 · answered by dollars2burn4u 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why automatic weapons?
This attack was carried out with a Glock 9mm. Semi-automatic.
There is no basis to ban weapons because incidents like this aren't typical. If we banned things that caused death, why not ban cars? Ban cigarettes? Ban aircraft?
2007-04-19 00:24:20 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
ok, i think that even though things like this happen, we should keep them. Think of it. If someone were to invade the USA, the attackers would not have to worry about the military, they would have to worry about the civilians the most. We can protect ourselves from attack with these types of weapons. Did you know that there are so many household guns in the us that if you added them up you could give 5 to each household. Now, it is kinda sad, however. But it makes us one VERY powerful country, know what i mean?
2007-04-19 00:26:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
No point whatsoever in automatic weapons. Every self-righteous conservative NRA booster thinks of himself as Dirty Harry, it seems - but the self-protection of gun ownership is served perfectly well without automatic weapons.
[ADDED] Woops, my mistake! Automatic weapons weren't used - it was SEMI-automatic weapons. Whew! I feel SOOO much better about that!
2007-04-19 00:25:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋