Yes I have often wondered that, thanks for the link
2007-07-05 23:22:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. "
That's the text. Why does the NRA fight every regulation, when the founding fathers put the words right in there?
How many more people have to die so that you guys can play Deathwish in the mirror?
2007-07-06 01:13:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by Schmorgen 6
·
5⤊
1⤋
Did you ever notice how the fringe liberals claim that President Bush is going to throw away the Constitution and become dictator later this year? At the same time, they do not respond when I ask "why isn't he pushing gun control if that is part of his plan" and "is there a similar motive behind a certain party that keeps trying to take away private gun ownership?"
Maxx P:
My favorite one is that the 2nd Amendment is part of "states rights." When I was a kid and they still taught "Social Studies" in grade school, I learned that an individual has rights and that a state has powers.
2007-07-06 01:08:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
6⤊
3⤋
this doesn't sound at all like anti-gun ownership, sounds more like AARP supports gun regulation, which is by all means, necessary and relevant.
anyone who thinks otherwise, truely are whackos.
You should ask the NRA to confirm their claims and provide details before you parrot them.
The Statment you get from the NRa is that these groups are anti-gun, the statment people who do their research get from the NRA is, the NRA is against any reqgulation that has to do with gun even if it is only to help keep the guns out of the hands of obvious criminals.
Oh and from a website that is just as looney as the NRA about gun regs
http://www.2asisters.org/AARP_Letter.html
2007-07-06 02:43:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by avail_skillz 7
·
0⤊
3⤋
don't worry to much about gun bans because many Americans will never comply with over restrictive anti -gun laws. they will never get the guns with out a civil war. I wonder how many of those actors and actresses use private armed security to protect their families?
2007-07-06 01:14:44
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
1⤋
I have wondered but it was readily available, if they contribute or aid the Democratic Secular Socialists, they are the enemy of liberty and freedom.
Another way is to go to http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.asp
and look at who is giving money to the dems, in particular the really rabid socialist dems, theres your enemy.
thanks for the link
2007-07-06 19:27:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by rmagedon 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
InAustralia they banned nearly all forms of gun ownership after a psychopath killed about 30 people here in a shooting incident about 11 years ago here; people were required to surrender their guns and were paid compensation, severe penalties were threatened for those retaining illegal weapons - of course honest citizens surrendered their weapons, I presume the criminals and psychopaths didn't
2007-07-06 02:18:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
"Homicide rates tend to be related to firearm ownership levels. Everything else being equal, a reduction in the percentage of households owning firearms should occasion a drop in the homicide rate".
Evidence to the Cullen Inquiry 1996: Thomas Gabor, Professor of Criminology - University of Ottawa
"The level of gun ownership world-wide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire."
International Correlation between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide.' Professor Martin Killias, May 1993.
2007-07-06 04:13:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
That's a long list! But it is no where near the length of the list of Americans against it. Never will they be able to take guns away from the people.
2007-07-06 01:11:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by Miss Kitty 6
·
4⤊
3⤋
The response directing you to google "T.I.A." as a threat to personal freedom is foolish. The IAO is a response to what the Liberals called a "failure to respond to imminent threats", it is a great program and those who have nothing to hide have nothing to worry about. I don't mind losing a bit of privacy in order to gain security, you can't have it both ways, but Liberals can't recognize that fact. I am pro gun rights, and as a gun owner I will always fight attempts to limit my ability to defend myself and my family.
2007-07-06 01:11:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by The Real America 4
·
5⤊
3⤋
Why is the Second Amendment considered a "collective" right by the left?
The Founding Fathers were not interested in the rights of the collective but of the individuals.
I am always amazed at the rights liberals can find in the constitution such as abortion and gay marriage but when a right is clearly spelled out they cannot see it.
2007-07-06 01:10:02
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
8⤊
5⤋