2007-11-21 09:40:54 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Not mandatory, but being in law enforcement, I can tell you that in States that have a large number of people who own firearms, the rate of home invasions, burglaries, and violence are down because a crooks runs a good chance of getting themselves killed.
In some states, your car is an extension of your home and yes, you can carry a loaded firearm in the car. The only warning on that is when stopped, with hands on steering wheel, advise the officer that a weapon is in the vehicle so they don't get upset.
I started out as a small town cop and first hand saw what happens when a car jacker moves on the wrong vehicle. Needless to say, he wont be jacking anyones car any more.
2007-11-21 09:47:13 · answer #1 · answered by George C 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Such a law has no more validity in a nation of free individuals than our foolish anti-gun laws in the U.S. I am all for unrestricted gun ownership, I just don't like that mandatory stipulation. Having an unrestricted right to something means not only do you always, always have a right to have and use it, but also that no one has the right to restrict your "right" to not have one. Now, I for one think anyone that does not own and know how to properly use, store and maintain a firearm in a world full of bad folks that will have them no matter what law you pass is a FOOL. But, to be honest, I feel that if you don't want a gun in your house, you would probably be more of a danger to me and others if you were forced to have one. This subject is a perenial idiots argument anyway, as the constitution is blatantly clear on it being a inherent right of the states and the individual, and why it must be so. The problem is that activist judges have "interpreted" things otherwise, knowing full well that the things that are in the bill of rights are clearly individual and cannot be amended or twisted by a traitorous judiciary.
2007-11-21 10:14:15 · answer #2 · answered by avatar2068 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a free nation, no. Words like compulsory and mandatory are tyrannical terms to me.
2007-11-21 09:44:02 · answer #3 · answered by dovesong44 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I do not like guns. Why should I be forced to have one in my home? Wonder how many more children would be killed.
2007-11-21 09:57:34 · answer #4 · answered by firewomen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No but all states should have Texas laws
2007-11-21 09:44:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Sure, and thus increase the crime rate by a bizillion percent.
2007-11-21 09:47:38 · answer #6 · answered by robert43041 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
ahlan wa sahlan, ya al-maghrebi. ana min america. kayf al-hal?
2007-11-21 10:21:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just what we need to get the murder rate down, more guns.
2007-11-21 09:46:21 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, that is radical even by NRA standards.
2007-11-21 09:59:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
no
2007-11-21 09:48:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋