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

Would you vote against them. Sure as shootin I would.

2007-11-27 10:38:27 · 18 answers · asked by R J 7 in Politics & Government Elections

I could not imagine if you couldn't hunt or protect yourself. Some folks are natural born shooters. The Repub Debate, they brought up that it's a family tardition. Beside in the south we are some of the shots in the world. No if they ever try that as you say it would be CLOBBERING TIME fro Americans. besides just look at stats in states where they have the right to "tote" IT CU CRIME, as the scumbags don't know if they got a mark or someone that will put a hole in there ***.

2007-11-28 13:09:29 · update #1

excuse me CUTS CRIME

2007-11-28 13:10:02 · update #2

18 answers

I have to laugh at the ignorance of folks who want to enforce gun control.

Let's compare guns with another type of weapon.

Cars.

The pros -
GUNS - a tool for sport, hunting, competition, collectors, historians.
CARS - a tool for sport, competition,
collectors, historians, travel.

The cons -
GUNS - you put a gun in the hands
of the wrong person.....someone dies.
CARS - you put a car in the hands of the
wrongs person .....someone dies.

If you'd like to make another comparison,
how about Guns and Doctors???

Doctors: (A) There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S. (B) Accidental deaths caused by physicians total 120,000 per year. (C) Accidental death percentage per physician is 0.171.

Guns: (A) There are 80 million gun owners in the U.S. (B) There are 1,500 accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups. (C) The percentage of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0000188.

I rest my [shell] case.

None of this has to do with the 2nd amendment. It has to do with common sense!

2007-11-27 13:18:27 · answer #1 · answered by COOKIE 5 · 1 0

100% yes, because that candidate has an agenda to change the 2nd Amendment. Obama is a good example he has come out and profoundly says the second amendement should be changed.

Let me say this, the 2nd Amendment is HOMELAND SECURITY.

If you belive that a catastrophic event is inevitable in this country (terroris or other) Understand the there will be absolutely zero public services for you to depend on. You will be left to fend for yourself, protect your rights, protect yourself, protect your family, and protect others as an american. You better hope you have a gun and know how to use it to tackle that very large task. I don't think for a minute that gun control will dis-arm criminals. Criminals will get a gun, or explosive device depending on their needs.

Plus where does it stop. England is getting ready to outlaw 3.5 inch knifes. hmmmm anyone measure a butter knife lately.

Or maybe the government should issue bullet proof vests and plastic bumpers you can wear around in public. That way you can be protected from bumping into things the government hasn't controlled yet. Its not even logical! Oh and if you don't wear them in public you can get a ticket.

How do you spell Socialism? DEMOCRAT! If a DEMOCRAT gets into office rumor has it, they want to add a letter to USA and change it to USSA, and it would mean the United States of Socialist America!

2007-11-28 15:45:44 · answer #2 · answered by Frequency 3 · 0 1

Abortion and gun control. 2 single issues. Can't run a county on a single issue platform. Need to look at the whole picture. You know, like when a woman is beautiful, but you get to know her and realize you can't stand anything about her but the way she looks? We will never lose our right to own arms, unless the republicans incorporate that into the patriot act, so lets get the big mess cleaned up and rest assured that abortion and guns will probably not change for years because of the the special interest groups.

2007-11-27 18:46:25 · answer #3 · answered by Cash 5 · 4 1

I would vote against them.

The Constitution was written to protect us from the Government.

So if you are one of those crackpots that thinks the 2nd amendment only relates to militias, ask the question: Why do only 9 of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights relate to the individual??

Can't answer, can you.

2007-11-27 19:49:41 · answer #4 · answered by idontknow 3 · 2 0

controling the fact if a gun is stolen it needs to be reported , so they know its on the streets , thats about the only thing i would vote for other then that legal gun owners arent the issue

2007-11-27 18:58:40 · answer #5 · answered by djominous20 5 · 2 0

Against. Especially if they refuse to recognize that rights come from God, not the government

2007-11-29 02:04:37 · answer #6 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 0 1

Of course I would. I would never vote for a politician that was trying to deprive me of my civil rights.

2007-11-27 19:59:36 · answer #7 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 3 0

If they have a problem with me owning my guns then I have a BIG problem with them being in office.

Yes, I don't think Hillary should even be a dog catcher.

2007-11-27 19:55:45 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

well it depends on what they are proposing just because the NRA calls it gun control doesn't mean i agree with them, they are a corrupt lobbyist organization just like the rest. they have blocked sane measures, just so they can raise funds and they have a 50 state solution instead of using a rational approach when a individual state comes up with a sensible plan.

so in short it depends on what the candidate is proposing.

2007-11-27 18:50:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 3

they have talked about this for years, and I don't see it happening any time soon, good grief how many people hunt, fish and cook??????? they have a show on t.v., all kinds of hunting show's I think the nra, would really put up a stink, what do you think????????

2007-11-27 19:54:35 · answer #10 · answered by poopsie 5 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers