English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

the way i see is a society trying to protect "freedom" with guns...
if none of the companies produce bullets or guns in the world. they will be nothing to shoot with. therefore no more killing

THINK ABOUT THAT! but more that think lets Act.

wow? you may ask.... PASS THE VOICE..... make this comment to all ears some one with power may listen!

2007-05-10 07:57:52 · 18 answers · asked by el_putaz 1 in Politics & Government Politics

the way i see is a society trying to protect "freedom" with guns...
if none of the companies produce bullets or guns in the world. they will be nothing to shoot with. therefore no more killing

THINK ABOUT THAT! but more that think lets Act.

wow? you may ask.... PASS THE VOICE..... make this comment to all ears some one with power may listen!

===============
So it its not so simple. have you ever play paint ball what you do when you ammunition runts out. you buy more. the guns that they make new hard drives new plugs for cellphones THEY WILL HAVE TO MAKE NEW AMMUNITION for guns that only police will have. what about solders? they will be train to help build. teach not destroy.

what about the jobs??
=================
they can work on finding ways to improve life. by improving them selfs.

you drop you steak knife>? pick it up and read!

SOLUTIONS ARE MANY AS PROBLEMS
its up to you what to target! <--PALEKOR

2007-05-10 09:29:35 · update #1

18 answers

So...you want no more bullets and guns.

The Second Amendment declares that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

Then, you declare that you are going to do more than think, you are going to act.

Exactly what is your "act" going to accomplish? How, exactly, are you going to make sure that there is nothing left to shoot with...since the people have a right to keep and bear things that they shoot with?

Do you intend to take physical action fo confiscate the arms that people have a constitutional right to keep and bear?

I think you have a tough task in front of you.

2007-05-18 04:04:12 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 1 0

Switzerland has plenty of gun homeowners however little or no gun crime. This is given that gun homeowners aren't allowed to possess ammunition. Your suggestion could paintings to a factor. There are nonetheless individuals who hand load their possess ammo, however they have a tendency to be critical hunters. Loading your possess shotgun shells is exceptionally fashionable. Others could make their possess ammo from scratch. But now not many individuals have those potential. Here in California, the trouble is addressed through restricting attack rifles to a ten-circular non-removable journal. The journal can truthfully be 'indifferent', however you wish to have a certain software to take away it. This prevents anyone from swiftly replacing 30-circular magazines and capturing one hundred bullets in a few mins. If you needed to mess around round with a certain software to reload, your sufferers would have a danger to flee. The California legislation have a well danger to be carried out in all 50 states.

2016-09-05 15:53:36 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

I live in a society where private citizens cannot buy or own weapons. I love it and I feel safe most anywhere walking even at 2:00 am by my female self. That is not to say someone can't use a knife or club or their hands as weapons, but it is to say that very few do. I love it. I recommend it. I don't have any answers for how a big country like the US, where millions of private citizens own weapons, can solve this problem. As someone has said, education might be a start.

2007-05-18 05:04:44 · answer #3 · answered by jaicee 6 · 0 0

Very poor thinking. The media try to tell everyone that guns are the only thing that kill. Did you know that there are FIVE TIMES more children that die from pools than from guns! Should we get rid of pools? Also, people will kill someone using whatever they can get their hands on. Did murder start with guns? NO. There has always been murder. They'll use whatever they can. Your thinking is very short sighted. In addittion to that, taking away my guns takes away my ability to protect myself, my family (that is from people that may or may not have a gun. Or what about an animal? Should I just threaten the attacking animal? How would you protect yourself from a bear?) and the ability to take charge of the government should they become like England did before the revolution. You don't take orders from England or any other nation in the world thanks to guns. Don't be ungrateful and shortsighted about it. Or believe everything you hear in the media. They're just pansies who don't understand anything.

2007-05-17 10:51:17 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Even if you take away the ability to produce firearms, and bullets, what about all the current guns and bullets in circulation?

ANd,even if you were to recall all the weapons and bullet....
there would still be a black market ..
and I would be able to build a gun in less than an hour, and be able ot case my own ammunition.

Lets not to forget how empowered you will leave all the terrorists.

Its this mentality that lacks a realistical approach to comprehensive gun control.
The bottomline with gun control, is education, education after the fact that you have to accept that 1) we have the right to bear arms, 2) americans love their protection

2007-05-10 08:03:25 · answer #5 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 3 0

Think we could get those Pesky Terrorists do quit making them any time soon???

By the way though, Very 1960's.
Give Peace a Chance-John Lennon. Killed by a NUT with a gun.....

The Ancien Greeks, Romans, Goths, Huns, Mongol, Crusaders, ect.......Managed to kill at a far greater rate than we do now, and Smith and Wesson wasn't even a "Glint in the Eye.

2007-05-18 06:31:54 · answer #6 · answered by Ken C 6 · 0 0

One of the first things Hitler did when he came to power was he made it illegal for Jews to own guns. When Hitler invaded Poland he made ownership of a gun punishable by death. If you even knew of someone who owned a gun and didn't turn them in, then you could receive the death penalty. Switzerland, on the other hand, gave their civilians a rifle and training to help defend their country during world war 2. Switzerland was not invaded and overrun like all the other unprepared countries (Austria, Czechoslovakia, Netherlands...). Can we not learn from the past?

2007-05-18 05:49:08 · answer #7 · answered by elias 2 · 0 0

Boy, your statement indicates that you are a true Pollyanna, and really out of touch with reality.Why do you think that your suggestion to deny any qualifying citizen with the right to own a gun, or guns will result in no more deaths by gun violence.
Come on. Have you any idea how many of the politicians elected by our "government" love to hunt, target practice, and really support the right to possess arms? My suggestion to you to to get a gun, and have fun.

2007-05-18 05:50:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

That's a pretty naive and silly notion, that if there were no more guns or bullets there would be no more killing. I reckon once the guns were gone you'd go after knives, sticks, cars, bathtubs, and everything else until it wound up you had everyone's hands cut off.

It's people who kill. Everything else is just a tool.

2007-05-17 09:13:28 · answer #9 · answered by Matthew T 1 · 3 0

It's an Islamabad Badislama company located in Osamaville Stanastanburg on the Willie Wonka highway to hell.

Save your soap coupons and you can use them to buy food at that market.

2007-05-17 15:26:44 · answer #10 · answered by Mr. Been there 4 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers