are they really trying to take our guns away?people say democrats dont want anyone to have guns?

Question

I thought that they were trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals,is this true?if not please tell me who is trying to take them away and please tell me your source so i can make a more informed decision when voting in 08

Answer 1

No, I would like to have better gun safety laws to keep them out of the hands of children. We are Democrats and would not give up our guns.

Answer 2

Nope. Criminals can always get guns - criminals don't register their guns.

The agenda here is to eliminate the "right to bear arms" so that the People will be helpless against their own government.

So incidents are created (the CIA is very good at brainwashing people to perform these terrible shootings), so that the press can exploit the incidents and make all the soccer moms afraid. Then the public will ask for this right to be taken away.

Then when it comes time either to declare martial law, or for the UN - One-World -Government to take over, the People will not be able to resist.

Answer 3

No one is trying to take your guns away. That is another Republican scare tactic based on lies just to scare you away from voting Democratic. Don't believe them.

Yes, there are attempts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and it is too bad that a young man in Nebraska could get an assault rifle, a military weapon, to wreak havock in the mall there. Had there been stronger laws he might have only been able to get a rifle or shot gun or a pistol and not an automatic rifle such as the one he had. Those other weapons, while dangerous, would have given victims a little bit better chance.

The Constitution allows guns in private hands in order to have a well regulated militia. Some argue that the National Guard is now that militia while others disagree. Personally I believe if one is careful and sane with firearms and doesn't stockpile an arsenal of them there is nothing wrong with private citizens having them for protection and sport. I am a pretty typical Democrat on this issue.

Answer 4

Yes, they are really trying to take our guns away. That was one of the first things Hitler did when he came to power, the German Weapon's Law of 1938, and Clinton signed the Brady Bill in the 90's.

Answer 5

Members of both parties are against you having the means to protect yourself in big cities-precisely where they are most needed.
Maybe they should read the constitution. The "people" does not mean the police or govt.
The best deterrent to armed criminals is armed citizens. The best detterent to tyranny is an armed citizenry.
Gun banners claim they do it for safety.
They really do it to further control over us.
An unarmed citizenry are no longer citizens -they are subjects.
The most recent attack on our liberty is bill 1022 from the desk of McCarthy(D).
Gun control is done incrementally until no one is allowed to own anything(like the UK).

Answer 6

The gun issue is just about moot at this point: They have fought to ban firearms and it has proved to be a loosing battle. There are just too many of us that still believe in our right to bear arms.

The new target is ammunition. New regulations on the transporting and handling of explosive powders will likely increase the cost of loading your firearms.

It seems a back-door entry to me.

Answer 7

The bill is HR 1022, and it was introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY). Sens. John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and Dianne Feinstein co-sponsored S.1431, a bill to ban--as "assault weapons"--every semi-automatic shotgun and semi-automatic detachable-magazine rifle, the majority of which are widely used by sportsmen. Another provision in the bill would have banned semi-automatic rifles and shotguns designed for defensive purposes. In some states, anti-gunners now propose banning pump-action rifles and shotguns as "assault weapons."

Answer 8

Liberals want your gun.
They will put limits,restrictions ( Brady Bill ) on them,license and tax them,register them,all in the name of crime prevention.
Just like they did in Austraiia,England,France ,Germany,Russia,ect.
When that does not work,they'll take them,at GUN point.

Google the gun laws in Cities like Chicago,New York,Washington DC and then check those cities crime rates.
In those cities only government and criminals have guns.

Answer 9

Look at Chicago, New York, Was. D.C., and California for your answer.

California is the most recent example. In 1992 (I think) the lefties passed the "Assault Weapons" ban in California. This banned any further sales of a certain number of weapons based on cosmetic appearances, not function (in other words, they looked scary to the lawmakers). Existing owners of these firearms were grandfathered in, provided they registered said firearms with the state, told that as long as they owned the firearms and registered them in accordance with the new law, they would be able to keep them.

It wasn't more than 4 years laters and the same group of lefties decided to make a new law that required confiscation of all such firearms covered under the law. Suddenly, a whole group of law-abiding firearms owners had to make a decision to either become a criminal or turn in their previously legally bought and possessed firearms.

How's that? I used to think the NRA was overboard about resisting any and all attempts at licensing and registration, that is until I actually studied the history of firearms registration and licensing. In nearly all cases, where firearms had to be licensed and/or registered, confiscation laws were passed within a few years.

Edit: Would any of the Einsteins who gave this a thumbs down like to refute any part of this answer?

Answer 10

The NRA can give you the source of ever single Democratic candidate that supports gun control. They keep track of every one.

Apparently, John Edwards has flip flopped on whether it's a right lately or not.

Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about it:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. "
Thomas Jefferson