If our government takes away our right to barearms the only one who will have guns is the crucks? this is a question for all gun owners
2007-09-26 16:24:52 · 27 answers · asked by mr_bare2007 1 in Sports ➔ Outdoor Recreation ➔ Hunting
If they outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns. With that being said if they try to outlaw guns they aren't getting mine without a fight
2007-09-27 00:19:06 · answer #1 · answered by Dustin W 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Most of these guys have the right idea but are all tough talk.
The fact is the government will never be stupid enough to mount such an total attack on gunowners, because it would unite is.
What they do instead is chip away state by state, law by law and not ban guns so much as just make them harder to own and less fashionable.
So when one state loses their guns its like"well that is just crappy california or new york, who cares about them"
And when it is their state, the other 49 just say, "well that is just them and their state sucked anyway"
The way the goverment does most of the damage is registration, waiting periods, enforced gun safety courses, licences etc. Basically a lot of negative paperwork that puts people off owning a gun due to all the red tape.
The reason this works is most gun owners support all that crap to one degree or another.They even enforce it themselves.
And this starts fights between them on what should be implemented. In fact the biggest gun law battles are not between the goverment and gunowners, but different gun owner groups.
They legislate each other out of ownership even worse than anti-gunners do.
When its someone else's state or gun type its like" well assault rifles are bad anyway, I'm a hand gun hunter. Lets ban the semi-auto guys, or not even support them-throw them to the wolves"
And then when handgun's come under threat like in New york, its like "who cares I don;t live there anyway"
At the end of the day all this " they can take my gun when they pry my cold dead fingers off it" is talk and nothing else.
People just make new excuses to avoid the action.
Trust me, its happening right now, in a state near you!!!
What are you doing about?
2007-09-28 01:33:13 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
If the government seeks to deny me the free exercise of my right to bear arms, the government has taken an illegal action. The government does not grant rights and can not take them away. No, it will not be only the crooks who have guns. To a greater degree it will be the patriots, who will have the difficult and dangerous task of getting the country back under the people's control.
2007-09-27 09:45:17 · answer #3 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What is your question??? If the government takes away our right to bear arms than yes only the crooks will have guns, unless we hide the ones we have! There is such an amazing history of how dictatorial leaders took over, removed peoples guns and removed every freedom of the people. God help us!!! I'm sure that this is #1 on Hilary's list. I can't figure out why anyone would want that witch in office. She is sooooo evil...even moreso than Bill.
2007-09-26 23:37:13 · answer #4 · answered by Free Thinker 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, if having guns are illegal, only criminals will possess guns. Partly because they're made criminals by breaking a no gun law, and partly because criminals generally don't care about laws to begin with. All the states and countries with gun bans are just havens where criminals operate without having to worry about getting shot. Even those criminals with a political career.
Gun control is the most important issue in any campaign in the United States. Without mass civilian gun ownership, it becomes possible for the government to do whatever they like. Having guns in this country is one of the very most basic rights assured in the Constitution. It was written like this intentionally, to make sure every man would be able to defend his homeland when the time came that there was an attack on our country. In WWII, Japan had the power for an inland invasion, but Isoroku Yamamoto knew that they would never stand a chance against the American population, for they all had their own guns. Otherwise, it is estimated they would have been able to get all the way to Chicago before we could have assembled a counterattack.
If someone outlaws guns in this country, I will not be disarmed. If they're not willing to lose all their armed security and walk around downtown, then there's no reason I should have to lose my own security for when I have to. It makes sense to me. Let's not forget Carl Rowan, the infamous anti-gunner who owned illegal firearms himself, and murdered a teenager for going through his backyard when he was in D.C., where any guns at all are illegal.
But then again, let's look at some of the countries that have successfully freed themselves from the guns. North Korea, for one, where child labor is perfectly legal. Germany had some success of disarming their citizens back in the '40s, but then they started killing them off. Genocide is no good, let's have none of that. Primative African countries never had firearms at all, and look what happened to them. They're killing each other with sticks, and sometimes getting killed by wild animals. There are still wild animals in the United States that would readily hunt hikers, bikers, and campers down. Without hunting, the deer population would skyrocket, as well as deer borne diseases, such as TB, which would be carried by the swelling tick population to humans. All while we're being mauled by wild animals because of the overpopulation of deer and other food animals.
2007-09-27 09:54:01 · answer #5 · answered by fishtrembleatmyname 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
At this point in time look at australia; they had a huge government buyback of firearms from the taxpaying citizens; who are now subjects and servants. The cops and crooks retained their weapons; crime has shot up drastically; rapes, murders, robberies, home invasions, the list goes on and on. The politicians have said they can't figure out why the big increase in crime!!! Any wild guesses??????
2007-09-27 11:25:07 · answer #6 · answered by acmeraven 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The government can't take away the right to have guns, because it's in the top ten of the constitution.
2007-09-27 10:58:44 · answer #7 · answered by esugrad97 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are correct here, so do not vote for Billary Clinton! Some people have forgotten the first (hopefully only) Clinton reign of terror against guns. The final part was to join crooked lawyer Wayne Gauthier in trying to sue makers and dealers of guns out of business. that has been fought against for years and is being won.
2007-09-27 10:03:37 · answer #8 · answered by miyuki & kyojin 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
there is a lot of controversy about this topic. however, at the end of the day, the constitution still gives all americans the right to own a gun in their homes. SO, there is no possible way that the government call make it illegal...
Yes, it's very controversial, Yes, there are a lot of people that would like to see gun control enforced, but the second amendment of the constitution is firm!
2007-09-26 23:33:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Places where the government has guns and the people don't are called Police States.
2007-09-27 00:37:15 · answer #10 · answered by DJ 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Over 25 million legally owned firearms in the USA. No one knows how many illegal firearms there are. If you remove the legal firearms, what is left? And who owns them? Certainly not responsible law abiding citizens, i don't know of a single responsible gun owner that has an ilegal firearm in their possession. So yes, if the government decides to revoke our GOD given right to defend ourselves, only law abiding citizens with legal firearms will be affected, the criminals with illegal guns will still be armed, and even more dangerous than they are already.The fear of legally armed citizens PREVENTS crimes before they even happen.
2007-09-26 23:46:14 · answer #11 · answered by boker_magnum 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋