Does it mean no guns or does it mean stringent back-ground checks on gun buyers?
2007-10-20 01:15:01 · 11 answers · asked by Mitchell 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm against guns, but if a law-abiding citizen wants something for protection, then go ahead.
Well, that's my opinion.
2007-10-20 01:28:49 · update #1
I'd have to say more stringent back ground checks on gun buyers. The problem with this is it drives up the cost for the blue collar Joe who works and enjoys many of the activities guns have to offer.
More stringent laws on the ones who are legally able to purchase guns will not drop crimes involving guns, as the criminals cannot legally purchase guns anyways. Criminals always can and will get a hold of guns if they want to.
Case in point, just recently in my small city there was a bank robbery and a gun was used. Guess what, they caught the criminals and found the gun they used...it was stolen...not legally purchased by the criminal.
2007-10-20 01:21:18 · answer #1 · answered by Colonel 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends, some places like DC and NY City pretty much ban any private gun ownership, so when a lot of people use the term, that's what they mean. This is clearly a violation of the 2nd Amendment since basically every U.S. male is a member of the militia (as defined in U.S. Code Title 10). I like your definition and believe that's the way it should be, "stringent background checks". As a gun owner, I am also in favor of a waiting period. If I want to go pistol shooting today and I don't own one, I see no reason why I can't wait until next Saturday, but I do think a cooling off period is useful. I really don't like the idea of someone decided that they want to own a firearm on the spur of the moment anyway. I would also not have a problem with having everyone who wants to buy any gun have an NRA certificate of completion for safety training course for each type of weapon that they want to own (pistol, rifle, shotgun). I think if everyone who owns guns were required to take these courses, we would have a lot less problems with accidents and stolen guns. I don't understand why the NRA opposes waiting periods and mandatory safety courses (especially since they provide the best safety courses). I see no problem with regulations of this type, since that would be part of the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Amendment.
Anything beyond regulations to make gun ownership safer such as prohibiting mentally sound, law-abiding citizens is not gun control, it is a violation of the Constitution.
2007-10-20 01:36:16 · answer #2 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It means the removal of all guns from the hands of the general population so when the/a government comes to get you you will have no way to protect yourself and stringent back-ground checks and gun registration lets the/a government know you have weapons and will take you out when they break down your door.
Case in point...Germany in the 1930's that lead to concentration camps and mass murders when Hitler took guns away from the general population. Don't say it can't happen here in the states it could very easily. More easily than you might want to think.
I too hate the rampant killings etc with guns, but to remove them the outcome will be worse.
2007-10-20 01:29:38 · answer #3 · answered by pinelake302 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Gun control should mean stringent back-ground checks and banning the sale of automatic weapons and cop killer bullets. No hunter or someone protecting their home needs a machine gun or dum dum rounds. Why should the cops be out gunned?
2007-10-20 01:31:03 · answer #4 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Gun Control = Violation of Second Amendment Rights.
The only people who benefit from gun control are criminals. Criminals could care less about laws. Gun control takes away a citizen's freedom to protect himself making him vulnerable to criminals. In areas where gun restrictions are strong, gun violence goes UP not down.
2007-10-20 01:36:12 · answer #5 · answered by skullklipz 3 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Keeping guns out the hands of Waco like wackos, the mentally unstable, and those prone to violence.
2007-10-20 01:40:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The only gun control we should have is, when you shoot at a criminal,you use 2 hands!Then there would be less crime........look at the crime figures for any state or city with real tight gun laws an you will notice a very high crime rate.States with conceal and carry always have lower crime rates
2007-10-20 01:23:26 · answer #7 · answered by roysbigtoys 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It means, don't pull the trigger until you are absolutely sure your aim is right.
2007-10-20 01:41:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
It means "legal" statute only.
2007-10-20 01:24:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It means no guns , and it means no more freedom of speech!
2007-10-20 01:21:45 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋