Who's for Gun Control?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-3KnBiPqF4


Watch the short 1-minute video and tell me if you're for gun control.

 

I'm for gun control. After all, you should take good aim when you shoot an intruder between the eyes!

 

Anyone with half a functioning brain has to wonder why only America, of all 'advanced' Western nations, still allows unfettered access to firearms, when everyone else discovered years ago that it isn't a great idea.
America's obscene rate of gun crime is equalled only by third-world banana republics. And, yes, I know your Holy Constitution allows you to own them. But at what price? http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

 

So by banning guns... it will further decrease firearm crime but, at the same time it will give more Power to the Government & Criminals. You're merely turning Firearm crime into something else completely while also creating another "War" against a certain product in US. It completely goes against the American Philosophy as a whole of the people vs. tyranny whether it's external or internal threats. When Lawful people open carry or even conceal carry their weapons they're doing so out of self protection and the protection of others. You cannot stop criminals from getting weapons considering the level of ground the Government has to survey while also trying to manage a massive influx of weapons through the borders. It's why the War on Drugs is such a failure...

 

So how do other countries manage to get by without millions of guns in circulation? I feel fortunate living in a country where I don't feel the need to have to arm myself in order to feel safe.
I understand entirely that criminals will be able to obtain weapons illegally, but buying a firearm (not that I could even if I wanted to), for the vanishingly small likelihood of my being confronted with a gun-toting lunatic in England, would be way down my list of life priorities.

 

I favor 'gun control'. But somewhat differently. I think it should be mandatory for every citizen to own a gun, and mandatory that they be trained properly how to use it. There should be a class on marksmanship in...middle school (Jr. High). Instead of getting a car when a kid turns 16 or 18, they should get a 9mm or a 30.06.

 

Now ,one could take that 2 ways.That Shatner { Captain Kirk } was using it to
portray gun possession as being always hurtful.That Guns,no matter whose hands they
are in can inflict pain.
Or than Guns are THE Great Equalizer.Carry a Gun and not fall prey to being a
wimpy puddle of touchy feely when the hammer drops.

 

I was for Gun control before i came to this forum and after reading the pro gun views. I am even more gun control.

I would not trust these gun lunatics with toothpicks and never mind a hand cannon.

 

So you ruther that the only ones carrying Guns are the Criminal who
don't follow laws to begin with.Banning Guns only makes criminals more Criminal.
What about personal security.I dare say most Grandpa had some form of weapon
as security at home.Even Grandma thought it pretty neato.

 

I have no idea on these fictional scenarios where gun heroes blast criminals with bullets.

If you want weapons, use those children scissors that can't cut paper.

 

I think Vermont has it about right.

At the same time I can understand the desire for large municipalities wanting to have limits, and would support reasonable controls for them.

Making gun ownership mandatory would be an absolute disaster.

 

Vermont doesn't have anything right,except their Maple Syrup.
Senator Patrick Leahy is a doofus,fudd- duddy knuckelheaded Liberal
who sat under too many shade trees as a kid wishin' for Maple drops.

 

you have to go too the source history on why the librials here respond too wanting gun control
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html

there minds are still in merry old england they love athority figures as kings and the rest of the population are servents or slaves to the system of that goverment.

 

That is a great post apart from the huge holes in your logic.

To ignore this usa revolution fight the power! and the goverment nonsense.

Why exactly do you want guns?

Some use it for sport and wild game which i can understand. But for home protection? How many realisticly live in ghettos to be in that unfourante situation.

 

It goes back to our revolution and our constitution. The purpose of the right to bear arms is so that the citizenry can protect itself against a government that has gone out of control. That hasn't happened in the U.S. and some believe the second amendment has helped to keep the power hungry government under control. It is only natural for a government that wants more and more control to want to reduce the power of everything else. Hence the desire for gun control. Citizens should hate gun control. Those that want to control others should love it. Apprently you love it.

 

so self protecting england thinks there govermental leadership should never be challenged in the future by rebels that might have enough of there socailistic system?

to many to list but yes having the edge over a bad situation as when my life fammily or property is being threaten..

so i see your realying on a protectionof a wall , or the kings police force to stay behind safe like, soorry to tell you sir general, its a mean world out side those castle gates your behind now.

 

I think the debate is too vague. What do we mean by 'gun control?' A lot of people would favor a ban on handguns, but not on hunting weapons. And even the staunchest right-winger firearms advocate seems to believe that private ownership of some weapons (generally beyond the category of 'guns') is worth invading another country to stop.

It doesn't help that the second amendment is vague itself. Taken literally, the constitution could mean either that citizens are allowed to carry knives and swords and such (note that it doesn't mention firearms), or that there should be no restriction whatsoever. But neither of those extreme positions has much of a following in America.

Personally, I don't think that banning personal firearms will help anything. And I think that weapons are important tools of independence. Not in a "rise up against the tyrannical government!" sense, because that's just not practical at this point, but more in a "hunt for your own meat and defend yourself from predators!" sense.

I relate to the poster that said the right-winger arguments had only made him more of a believer in gun control, though. I still believe in the right to bear arms, but I have to admit that after listening to the right-winger arguments on the Zimmerman situation, that belief got pretty shaky. I've come away from that debate with the feeling that a lot of right-wingers supported Zimmerman not out of racism or classism but simply because Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not, and therefore that made Zimmerman the hero in their eyes.

Anyway. I think people in America do need the right to bear arms. I've tried archery. It's not for everyone.

 

Like "nature's God" told us, " else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house."
(Matthew 12:29)

 

I will never understand this view to guns on this forum.

It is like a 1970s kung fu martial arts film. With the members running around but instead of swords, they are wielding guns!

Is that what america is like? Armed bandits roaming the country with only your good sense and firearm practise to keep you safe.

 

In some places. Alaska.

America does have wilderness. It's not entirely civilized. Obviously.

 

i have to say that personal firearms are no match to tanks and gunship helocopters, but as a gurrellia war weapon its still very powerfull at long ranges vivi snipering , exploisives
are the choice now in afgan and iraq as there rebels use it to cause themost dammage, and would be used against the troops here in the usa . now your correct about anarcy situation that is now happiening in major cites as gang members and cartel types have taken over terriorys in mexico and citys in the usa , because the allowing of guns with out controls, but there has to be a bigger sentence to those that , violate the gun laws and thats what is missing the goverment is allowing all the power into gangs causeing chaos and then they will follow with taking all the guns away from the pubilic.

 

I own an AK-47, a 1911 (.45 pistol), and a .22 rifle. I have no idea why anyone would say that I should not be able to own or fire these weapons. Such people annoy me because they can't mind their own (*)(*)(*)(*)ing business and leave people alone. I don't tell them what they can and cannot own, I have no idea why they feel entitled to tell me what I can and cannot own. Maybe the anti-gun crowd needs to go play with some firearms. Maybe if they realized what they are (they don't magically kill people by existing) then they won't be so frightened of them.

 

If you were in the time of Robin Hood and asked him if he would disarm, he would laugh at you and tell you and show you who the big problem was for the people (a king, a tyrant)

 

This is a patently absurd excuse. What evidence do you have that your government has at any time even appeared to go 'out of control', and, how would this imagined loss of control manifest itself? Furthermore why would being able to own a gun help you?
In many ways your Constitution is an amazing document. Not in this way, however.

 

This view to use guns against a goverment, how does it work?

So when a time happens of forum members fears, their goverment uses the police and army to create a james bond super villian in their country.

What do the revolutionists do? Do they meet up in pre agreed locations and how do they know, who is who? Secret handshakes?

And who is in charge, is that pre agreed or is a game or Rock/Paper/Scissors played.