Home More advice Politics & Law
How do yall feel about the Rights to Keep and Bear arms? I feel very strongly about it and if a Dem (hillary or obama) gets into office they want to bring back the assults weapons ban. I know some feel strongly about it and yet they vote for these people.
Watch the News and search it on the INTERNET. Its a proven fact. Join the NRA and you will find out more about it. Sure you can ban guns but the criminal is still going to have them, they aren't getting them legally and then you have disarmed the law abiding citizen so he cannot defend him self do Homicide goes up.
FWiedner: Why Liberals Love Gun Control
by Justin Darr
If there is one thing liberals love more than banning Christianity from public schools it is creating ineffective gun control laws. Despite centuries of evidence that gun control laws do not lower crime, stop violence, or make society safer in any way, liberals keep plugging away at our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
I am not going to weary you with a regurgitation of all the well known statistics showing how strict gun control laws are followed by sharp spikes in violent crime rates or with arguments asking the left to explain its intellectual consistency behind their view that the only remedy to a failed gun control law is the creation of another gun control law just like it. The real question in the gun control debate is not the statistics or the nuances of the law but why in the first place liberals are so preoccupied with making it harder for law abiding citizens to carry a gun.
Gun control laws are as old as America, stretching far back into the early Colonial period. As far as the United States as a political entity is concerned, the first gun control law came less than one year after the ratification of the and Amendment in the Bill of Rights with the “Uniform Militia Act of 1792.” In the Act, every “able bodied white male citizen” between the ages of 18 and 45 was to be enrolled in the state militia and was required to “provide himself with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition.” In early America, it was not a question of “if” you had the right to bear arms, but whether or not you would be “required” to own a gun. This Act is significant for two reasons. First it shows the intent of the Framers was that every citizen was considered part of the militia, therefore, no citizen could have their right to bear arms curtailed by the government. Second, with the Act designating “white males” as citizens and part of the militia, it effectively deigned slaves and even free African-Americans their newly declared Constitutional rights.
It is quite obvious that there were many in early America who did not want slaves, or those sympathizing with their suffering, from having access to guns. Why? Well, it is pretty simple. If slaves had guns, then they would not have been slaves for much longer. Firearms would be used by slaves as a tool to overthrow their oppressors just as the American Colonists had done against the British and demand their full rights and dignity as citizens. The “Uniform Militia Act of 1792” opened a door that was used by many states to pass follow up legislation that made it illegal not just for African-Americans to carry or own a gun, but to even use one unless under orders from their “master.” From its inception, gun control was a vehicle to deny basic rights, prevent self defense, and oppress citizens.
Gun control laws still disproportionately regulate the African-American community, but now our benign liberal leaders want to spread the oppression about a bit more fairly. But the goal is the same. Gun control does nothing but oppress a population, deny them basic rights, make them subservient to the government, and prevent them from changing their collective conditions at the time of their choosing, rather than at the sanction of the State. Liberals do not want you making your own decisions anymore than they did the slaves. That is their job. How can they possibly restructure society so a Republican is never elected President again if people are running around not doing what they are told? Liberals love gun control for the simple fact that it directly impacts the most independent, self reliant, and free thinking of us as demonstrated by our refusal to proxy our personal protection out to an unaccountable government.
The goal of gun control is not to actually control guns and make the world a safer place, but to control people. It is not as important for you can pass a criminal background check so much as it is that you feel obligated to ask the state for permission to buy a gun. Liberals know gun control laws will not stop criminals, but it will erode the sense of independence and self reliance of regular people until they feel that they can do nothing that does not meet government approval.
Gun owners choose to protect themselves, thank you very much. They do not need government protection anymore than any of the other ill conceived plans of the left. And that is why the liberals want to control their guns. It is the only means they have to directly control the lives of those who would otherwise go on ignoring them.
http://www.therealitycheck.org/GuestColumnist/jdarr011105.htm
Just do you research and you will find out info that will surpise you. We have enough gun laws as it is and we don't need more. We have a background check, the government has all of you info and if a crime is committed with that gun it is easily found. Some states have waiting periods which is about stupid. You can't buy a gun if you are a felon and you have to wait so long if you committed a misdemeanor. Criminals don't get guns legally they get them illegally normally from our broken borders and illegals.
I am a very big supporter of the right to keep and bear arms. I am a member of the NRA. I love being able to go out and hunt. target shooting is one of the ways that I relax, I love being able to shoot a circle the size of a penny at 100 yards. I am planning on training my friends children in how to shoot and hunt, and how to be a RESPONSIBLE hunter and eventually GUNOWNER. the LUNATIC FRINGE is not a valid reason to take firearms out of the hands of responsible gunowners. if someone wants to commit the crime of murder- they will find another way to do it if they do not have access to a firearm. 'craziness' and murder were around a long time before firearms were invented. to a psychotic mind- a hammer is a weapon, any normal everyday object can become a tool of murder. use the prison system for example, as far as the cell blocks and exercise yards go , these are areas where firearms are NOT present, yet the inmates DO KILL EACH OTHER all the time. murders and assaults didn't stop in prison because they can't get a gun, they just get more inventive. where the criminal mind has a will- they will find a way. I believe that an ARMED society is a POLITE society, and much safer. if the criminals are afraid of being confronted by a responsible gunowner, who is willing to use their firearm to defend themselves and their families, I believe that the crime rate would drop. as far as me- I will not turn in my guns if it ever comes to that, I will hold my ground - in the spirit of the founding fathers of this country. JOIN THE NRA, we need as much support as we can get.
I don't see a problem with anyone owning a AK47. It is just a semi auto and you can buy any semi auto for hunting purposes and its in .223rem which is a good varmit round. Many people use them to hunt varmits. Its called the "Black Gun" that is what most people call an "assult rifle" when really it has nothing diffrent from your regular semi auto. I don't see a problem with owning a full auto but for target shooting only. I don't think we need stricter gun laws. For example there was a big shooting a while back when some criminal got ahold of guns illegally with all of the gun laws and some anti gun people were caught up in it. They went to a gun shop to get a gun to denfend theirselfs and the shop sold them the guns but they anti gunners got caught in there 2 week waiting peiod loophole. I don't think there should be a waiting period as long as you pass your background check and aren't a felon you can buy a gun. I do think that they should lower the age where you can buy a pistol its about stupid to have to wait until you are 21 to buy a pistol. What is a military style gun going to do? And if we lose the second amendment then we can lose any of them and we probably will. Its taking away from our rights and freedoms and we might as well live in a country like China were we are controlled fully by the government. It has been shown in statics with gun bans and stricter gun laws that crime goes up and that is because we cannot defend ourselfs. If you get rid of gun or make more strict bans then we will be China and the murder rate will rise and we will lose freedoms.
First lets be very clear about this. It's not a ban on owning guns, only assault weapons. The same kind of guns that the military uses. I am not a hunter, but I support a persons right to go hunting. While I also support responsible gun ownership, I really don't see the need for people to go "hunting" with an AR-15 or an AK47. Perhaps instead of a full ban of the assault weapons, a new licence category should be created to allow those that feel they really need to have them. Either way, a full background check is still needed to keep guns out of the hands of people that should have them.
I know it's not the end all be all of keeping people safe, but its a starting point. We just need to make sure that if someone owns a gun, they have a licence for it. And if they sell it, the person that buys it has a valid licence.
I live in a country where you are not allowed to bear arms as a right. This does not stop you from being allowed to have guns for hunting - but you have to apply for a license (which is basically is a piece of paper which says that you are a responsible gun owner) and you have a limit to the amount of guns you can own, and the types of guns - if you are a hunter, you would be allowed to own hunting rifles, but not a Glock Pistol for instance, or an AK-47. If you are a target shooter, then you might be allowed to have a license to own a Glock. But semi- or fully- automatic weapons are out of the question.
We also don't have a law which allows the right to arm bears. But we have no bears, so that's not a problem :)
there is a film,bowling for columbine, that might shed some light on the gun control issue. in one segment of the film it examines the cities of detroit, michigan and windsor, ontario. they are directly across from each other, with only a river separating them . detroit (population 919,000) is a high crime city (2007 homicides -404). windsor, ontario (population 218,473) right across the river (2007 homicides -4). so basically there are 4.2 more people in detroit than windsor, multiply that by the homicide rate = 16.8. okay that is 404 to 16.8 (based on equal populations) they are only one mile apart and are connected by a tunnel. the main difference between these two cities is the gun control laws.
I find it interesting that gun enthusiasts say things like, "without the 2nd amendment none of the others mater" and "as long as there are responsible and educated gunowners in America, this nation has hope."
I've just never seen privately owned guns as being that central to our national interests. I'm far more concerned about the 1st ammendment (freedom of speech, religion, and press) and the 4th ammendment (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure) as the cornerstone of our freedom.
While the Brady Bill and the Assualt weopon ban are federal laws most gun control laws are state and local laws which don't really have anything to do with the federal 2nd ammendment.
Hate to break it to you, but that's an opinion column, not statistics. It doesn't really prove anything, but hey, that's okay. A quick search of the net seemed to show that more violent crime happens in the US than other Western nations, despite having guns (or maybe because of it?). Since the NRA's a US organization it doesn't really apply to my country, and I would expect such an organization to push it's own agenda. And making it easy for the public to own an AK47 means that its just going to be that much easier for a loony to get their hands on one. That's my opinion anyway.
The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was so the federal government could not become become tyranical without a credible threat of overthrow. Note that the 2nd Amendment is in respect to 'arms', not just guns. That means that Bill Gates has a Constitutional right to own tanks and fighter jets.
I'm all for the right to bear arms, but the right to arm bears...not so much. Also, you shouldn't own any bear arms from endangered bears, and if you're arms are too fat and hairy, you should not bare them. The puns are unbearable. I'll stop now.
same here we have now bears but those damn red squirrels have been throwing a lot of threats towards thos gray squirrels and im afraid of getting caught in the cross fire when it kicks off and don't even get me started on those foxes strutting around thinking they own the place with there semi-automatics protecting turf.
OMG did I just completly lose the point or what! lol
*** It has been shown in statics with gun bans and stricter gun laws that crime goes up and that is because we cannot defend ourselfs. If you get rid of gun or make more strict bans then we will be China and the murder rate will rise and we will lose freedoms***
Where are these statistics, then? Because I would sure be interested to see them.
Like uncledoody, I've lived in countries that don't allow ordinary citizens to bear arms in the way you can in the US. I have to admit I'm happy with that. I take your points above, but I'd counter that with the fact that we have fewer gun crimes and less chance of tragic accidents.
Here in Ireland we have a ban on weapons but we can have rifles with a licence maby they'll do that over there if its brought in.
I think its a good law, im not saying people can't be responsable with guns but for every 100 responsable person theres someone just plain crazy.
Obama, in a 1996 candidate survey, revealed his 2nd Amendment answer: asked if he supports legislation to, “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” His one-word answer—uncommonly direct and lacking the flowery eloquence we’ve come to expect from him—was “Yes.”
None of the April 11 editions of the network morning shows: ABC's "Good Morning America," CBS's "The Early Show," and NBC's "Today," noted the April 10 unanimous ruling of the California Supreme Court striking down a San Francisco handgun ban - Surprise you ?
I own no guns and I still don't like the ban, never know when those dam Canadians or mexicans are going to invade. We need assault rifles, there fun to shoot
Baldwinwolf I have to agree 100%. I am a life member of the NRA and I am a member of SCI also. I as a hunter and a shooter think that everyone should join.
glad to hear it deerhunter270, as long as there are responsible and educated gunowners in america, this nation has hope.
im not sure toadaly I had a little chuckle at those puns lol
bloody samuari swords being banned next!
