Do you agree with politicians in Washington, D. C., who say that all gun owners should be licensed, and forced to register their guns with the government?* Yes...or...No
2007-12-06 12:32:29 · 25 answers · asked by dca2003311@yahoo.com 7 in Sports ➔ Outdoor Recreation ➔ Hunting
Not only NO, but HELL NO!
What part of "Shall NOT be INFRINGED" don't these bleeding-heart libertards NOT UNDERSTAND? ANY law-abiding Citizen should be able to go armed as he damn-well PLEASES, even if he or she wants to walk around with a machine gun slung over their shoulder. . . . .
That's what I'm SURE our founding forefathers intended, no matter WHAT the bleeding-heart liberal Demacrack socio-crats in D.C. are trying to perpetrate. . . . . . . .
The Second Amendment was meant to assure ALL Americans the way to defend and guarantee the continuance of ALL our other freedoms. . . . . . .
And this is what Pelosi, Clinton, Schumer, & Co. are SCARED SHITELESS OF! ! ! !
"An Armed Man is a CITIZEN, an Unarmed Man is a SLAVE!"
2007-12-07 02:40:51 · answer #1 · answered by Grizzly II 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. That is unconsitutional. What country do we live in? Last time I checked the government was prohibited from interfering with the individual right to own guns. I'll tell you what I told another asker who posted a similar question. If they socialize gun ownership to the point where they know exactly how many guns you own and what type, and then one day decide to play with the law and put an all out ban, then it's going to be Revolutionary War II. I Fool You Not.
2007-12-06 13:33:40 · answer #2 · answered by super682003 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. That would make it that much easier to make us all disarm in the future. We all know the BATF is no good with record keeping, and I'd hate to trust them to keep track of whether or not I'm going to jail or not. Plus, they'd take too long on issuing and renewing licenses, and people would probably get charged for not having their licenses in time, due to government incompetence.
Remember, the government that has the power to give you everything has the power to take it away just as fast. A national firearms registry is just the first step to all LEGAL firearms being stolen. Of course, criminals won't register firearms, so they'll be able to keep them, and the law abiding citizen will be defenseless against them.
Elizabeth: Your 'COUSINE' didn't believe in owning firearms, did he. He left himself defenseless because he thought nothing would happen to him, or that the police would protect him, right?
2007-12-06 13:03:49 · answer #3 · answered by fishtrembleatmyname 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The back ground check is more than enough ....think about it folks there are a lot of you out there that want gun owners licensed ...how many criminals do you know that buy their guns legally???? DUH!!!
If you are committing a crime would you use a weapon registered to you?? Only if you are a moron.
Guns don't kill they are a tool..inanimate...can't jump out of the gun safe and shoot on their own.....
Face it PEOPLE KILL I don't know of any gun that has woke up one morning and decided to go out and shoot at any particular person do you????
2007-12-06 23:58:04 · answer #4 · answered by searching for friends 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No...I have a "Concealed Carry Permit", which means my name, my social security number, my fingerprints, and every address I have ever lived at, has been ran through the FBI, SBI, State and Local crime data base. It has also been ran through the Mental Health data base. They already know that I am not a threat to society.....I am less threat than some of the police officers on the street.....Collecting the serial numbers and descriptions of my guns...is a violation of my rights to own private property without government intervention....Which is allowed under the Fourth Amendment....
2007-12-06 13:40:25 · answer #5 · answered by Pullet Surprise 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, since there has never been registration of guns which was not followed by a partial or total ban.
edit
A good example is the ban on further production of full auto firearms for the private market, registration led to the ban, and as a side note, all murders committed with legal full-autos were committed after the ban.
2007-12-06 13:31:57 · answer #6 · answered by Gray Wanderer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gun bans might have 0 result on terrorists' ability to commit acts of violence, different than perhaps make it extra straightforward for them to achieve this, as has been stated above. i'm beneficial any terrorist might choose to be sure such legislations handed right here, merely like i'm beneficial they're taking section in all the scuffling with occurring now approximately lacking CIA tapes and the banning of waterboarding. inspite of each little thing, something which the enemies (those in Washington and hollywood, no longer the midsection east) of our protection rigidity can do to assist the genuine enemies of this u . s . a ., they look doing.
2016-10-01 00:57:37 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO.
We all have a license already. It is called the Bill of Rights.
And my guns are a damned sight less dangerous than a politician!
Doc
2007-12-06 16:36:40 · answer #8 · answered by Doc Hudson 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, that's idiotic.
What purpose could such a listing serve?
Seriously, ask yourself what the intended use of such a list would be?
You cannot prevent crime with such a list.
The only possible reason for wanting such information,
is for future plans of gun confiscation BY FORCE, which, curiously enough, is exactly what HITLER did in NAZI GERMANY in 1937!
I'm sure you remember how well THAT turned out for everyone.
NO, I do not agree.
2007-12-06 16:25:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Again, it is not up to the government to control firearms owned by law abiding citizens. In fact the main reason the constitiution guarantees us the right to own them, is to keep government under control and prevent a big government from taking away ALL rights.
2007-12-06 12:51:26 · answer #10 · answered by randy 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋