Why do law abiding citizens have a problem with gun control?

A whole forum for gun control...wow!?

Anyway, I don't understand why a law abiding citizen would have a problem with sensible and strict gun laws. The idea is to make the whole thing safer like traffic laws or anything else. Close the gun show loophole and stuff like that. Why is that a bad thing? Background checks, etc. Do all that can be done to keep America as safe as possible. Ban over powered weapons that no sensible law abiding citizen would ever need or use or want for the purpose intended by the 2nd amendment.

I also don't understand why a law abiding citizen would need a machine gun ever. Has there been a single situation where a citizen protected themselves with a machine gun? Are law abiding citizens walking around with machine guns to protect themselves?

 

I don't understand why a law abiding citizen would need to be prohibited from having a machine gun.

 

What's sensible or strick, will differ between people, which should but dosen't include a potential enemy. For instance, your police force today has some extreme weapons and equipment compared to say, 50 or 60 years ago, while the average citizen has less legal protection than even 5 years ago, in some places.

What's a purpose for gun control, under the Federal Government, if not to disarm the general public? Then down to my problem, is the constitution and the purpose for an armed public, even considering the changes of all thing from then to today. As later as 1939, it's said we had Japenese sub's , off the west coast and even today we have gangs of drug dealers roaming the country, no less than in Mexico, then to disarm the general public would only increase to potential for more activity. IMO

By the way Machine Gun's are illegal, today.

 

Because they are insanely dangerous and have no sensible use. What does anyone need one for?

 

Not disarm....control. Background checks, gun show loopholes. Like controlling the nations highways for the safety of all.

 

Sure a 50 cal or a M60 machine gun could be used as a deterrent to hone invasions. You could set it up in your foyer and make that the invaders try to crash through the front door. You may have a bit of explaining to do as to shy you killed the entire family of neighbors across the street while you were killing the bad guys.

 

"Why do law abiding citizens have a problem with gun control? "

Gun control doesn't effect those that do not follow the law.... I say punish people that misuse guns, and allow everyone, even ex-felons and those with mental issues to own guns, as long as your a free American, I do not care what your past is, you have a constitutional right to own a gun, no different then free speech or religion

.

 

Actually no, Machine Guns are perfectly legal to own in most States, there are many Law Abiding Machine Gun owning people, every year they meet at places like Knob Creek and let loose, Machine Guns are expensive for regular Civilians, a transferable M-16 can run you over $30,000 + $ 200 Tax, it gets spendy, post 1986 transferable guns.

Machine Gun Owners have a spotless record.

 

Perhaps in certain states?

Here's a list of the laws in each state:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

I don't understand why any average person would need a machine gun or an automatic or semi automatic weapon, especially without strict strict controls and safety measures, licensing, and whatever else....just like when you buy a car. Why is that a problem for decent people?

I'll also ask again, has there ever been a single case where an average person protected themselves or anyone with a high powered weapon? Are law abiding decent citizens walking around with high powered automatic or semi automatic weapons?

 

And You could maybe run people over with your car because you talk insanely, lots of people legally own machine guns and have never done what you speak of.

 

Which shows the effectiveness of regulations of machine guns

 

Do you have proof of that?

Should all safety laws regarding cars and driving be abolished because people who break the law don't follow the rules? No need for driver's license or speed laws or anything because decent people will be sensible? I can't imagine any decent American thinking that would be the right thing to do. Most decent Americans I know follow the rules and are for rules that help keep themselves and others as safe as possible.

I just don't understand why stricter rules bother people so badly. How would it keep you from exercising your basic rights?

 

If they have no use, then why are they manufactured for profit?

 

In a word, in the U.S. why yes, many of us legally own many types of Rifles and are Decent and safe and Law Abiding respectful people.

Depends what you consider a high powered weapon, I have used Rifles to defend myself many times.

 

Probably not the best tool for the job.

But as I said, I don't understand why a law abiding citizen would need to be prohibited from having a machine gun.

 

That is OK, you do not have to understand, We all obey the current Gun Laws, We may not like them, but we obey them just the same, so since we all obey Gun Laws, why should anyone care how we feel about them ?

 

I'm curious as to what you need one for?

 

If you can pass a very comprehensive background check, pay lots of money, $30,000 U.S. a $200 tax, you too can own an M-16 !

 

I don't need one. But I don't understand why a law abiding citizen would need to be prohibited from having a machine gun.

 

I don't understand what you are saying. There is always this issue about guns and the 2nd amendment. There are laws and many decent law abiding American citizens feel they should be stricter. As strict as possible. Everywhere. Just as there are laws for driving and everything else. Yet there are others who think this is somehow going to take away their rights and their ability to protect themselves when that is not the intention. No one wants to take away your licensed car. They want to control the roads for the safety of all decent Americans.

- - - Updated - - -

Should a law abiding citizen be prevented from having any weapon of mass destruction?

 

A machine gun (the subject of your OP) is not a weapon of mass destruction.

 

If the individuals that are pushing for so-called "sensible gun laws" were not looking to outlaw all legal gun ownership. They only want the criminal element to have the guns. Many of them are the same ones that are pushing to disarm the police.

The fact is that according to studies, law abiding US citizens use firearms between 500,000 to 3 million times a year to successfully defend themselves and their families. Yet, you would support legislation that would make those successful defenders into victims. Why? Because you don't want to get shot when you stage your next home invasion robbery, or the next time you attempt to jack a car? Otherwise, why would a law abiding citizen having a gun worry you?

 

You can kill a lot of people with one, yes? Should a law abiding citizen be prohibited from carrying any sort of weapon that can kill a lot of people easily, such as grenades or a bomb in a back pack. If there's no reason to prohibit a machine gun from law abiding citizens, why prohibit law abiding citizens from doing anything at all including owning any sort of extremely dangerous weapon? What's the difference? Just trust everyone who's decent to do whatever they want and own whatever they want.

- - - Updated - - -

Not talking about anyone who would suggest any such thing. Not even aware of anyone who supports such a thing.

 

Btw, when has anyone defended themselves with a high powered weapon?

Also, again, I'm not talking about taking away anyone's legal firearm, licensed and controlled, for the use intended.

 

It is a very polarized topic.

Would you have a problem with being forced to prove that you did not take part in a sexual assault in your neighborhood, simply because you are male and live in the neighborhood, and may possibly fit a general description that is vague enough to encompass tens of millions of individuals? It is not much different from that.

There is no loophole. On the federal level, private individuals were never required to carry out background checks before selling one of the firearms they own. Even if such a mandate were enacted into law, there is no way of enforcing it without the mandatory registration of every last firearm currently in existence, which is a physical impossibility.

The nation of Canada attempted such with but a tiny portion of the number of firearms the united states has, and they found it absolutely impossible to achieve. They wasted billions of taxpayer dollars attempting such for many years, and that was simply to maintain the information on who owned what. No crimes were ever solved by such a program, meaning it served no legitimate purpose.

Such as life sentences for violent offenders, to ensure they can never put anyone except themselves at harm again? If not then why not?

Explain what is overpowered. Many hunting rifles are far more powerful than firearms such as the AR-15.

Constitutional rights do not have to fit needs to be justified. You do not need an attorney of your choosing so long as you are provided with a court appointed defense counselor who is fresh out of law school, but you would certainly want the choice to be available to you.