Assault Weapons Ban- Yea or Nea?

[Andy16]

Ummm, sorry to interupt here, but I just wanted to make my own opinion, not that it matters. It might have been said already, I dont know, i didnt read the whole thread. But its a alot easier to kill someone with a gun than it is with a scissors, ruler, pen, and all of the other examples people mentioned earlier in the thread. I would rather have somebody with a sciccors trying to kill me, than somebody with a gun. At least I could run away and have a better chanve defending myself against those things.





I dont know how to spell scissors, its that or sciccors. I have no idea.

 

[slipknottin]

and its easier to defend yourself with a gun than scissors or a ruler.

The ban on guns only impacts those of us who follow the laws. It wont affect criminals.

 

[Lila]

Originally posted by slipknottin
The ban on guns only impacts those of us who follow the laws. It wont affect criminals.

Plain and simple, that's what gun control does. How much further does the debate have to go? This is what it centers on.

Gun control will not affect criminals. Can we debate on that?

Hmmmm?

Lila

 

[Cheech]

"That is exactly the type of naive thinking that allowed Hitler to dis-arm the general population of Germany in the 30's, Peolpe knew they were safe living in a civilized world, so they relinquished their weapons. "

This sentence still makes me wonder... From my understanding, you think you live in such a place where "not having a gun" is a bad and scary thing? You see, that would never go through my head, or anyone else I can possibly think of. I don't feel I have to live in fear...

 

[happychem]

Heat,
No, obviously there would be no hesitation. However, for the few and rare cases where someone is actually abducted from their home, I've never read of a situation where the presence of a gun in the house could have helped. The parents wake up, and it's too late.

Ditto for most home invasions, by the time you realize what's happening, it's too late.

Contrary to popular myth, burglars aren't lurking around your home at night when you're asleep, they're lurking when they think you're not home.

However, a ban serves no purpose but preventing law abiding citizens from obtaining weapons. Control on the other hand is supposed to assure that those who obtain guns are law abiding citizens, and IMO should assure that they know how to use and store the weapon in a safe and responsible manner. That's what I would like to see, and I think that it's very important not to confuse those two words. Unfortunately, these things have gotten so burdened by the weight of bureacracy that there is need of a significant overhaul to streamline the existing system.

 

[heat]

I couldn't agree more with you Happychem, on the part about control needed. That I will never agrue with. Had there been more the buyer and dealer had to go through those guns wouldn't have been in the kid's hands at Columbine, at least in this instance. (Just using that as a very public and highly visable example)


I'm not worried about material things, the burglers can take everything I have. Generally home invasion in my area is unarmed. (Read that as not commited with a gun, other weapons could be present) But, the people I'm concerned about are those that I know that would do harm to those I love. I live in a small enough town that when attempted abductions happen it's almost instantly known through out the community. We had one two weeks ago, in a neighborhood I used to live in.
We never imagine it can "happen to us". But that's not where society is as a whole anymore. It can and does happen to us. That is todays reality. In a news program recently, it quoted a statistic that 1 in 32 adults right now in the USA is on parole, probation or incarcerated, or has recently been. (found link CBS News )
I prefer to blame the person commiting the crime as opposed to blaming the weapon of choice. Get truely tough on crime, ALL crime, drunk driving included. Stop pleading the crimes down to lessor offences and make them do the time. Be realistic in the fact that many will not be rehabilitated. Hold people responsible for their actions. Start at home with holding children responsible for their actions.


Rambling a bit. Sorry.
As for the banning? Back to the topic. It doesn't as a whole work with how it's set up. We as a nation, imo, do need to some extent gun control legislation. Laws provided to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But the laws now do not work. The criminals in many places have more advanced arms than the police force we as a whole rely on to protect us.
I'm reapeating the same thought again, banning guns only takes them out of the hands of law abiding citizens, not criminals. I've no problem jumping through some hoops to own a firearm. I'd prefer to see that some of the control laws are working. But unfortunately as many have pointed out, it applies to all of us but only those of us that follow the laws are affected. We could argue the flaws in current laws, but imo, it is the people that are to be governed by said laws that are flawed. If we weren't flawed none of us would need these laws in the first place. Common sense seems to have been bred out of part of the human race.

 

[greeneyedlady]

I just had to chuckle "political heros", hahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

I live next to D.C. there is no such thing as a "political hero"


And everybody already knows how I feel about idiotic gun control fanantic's that want to bandaid a larger problem by punishing law abiding citizens

It is just another political issue that doesn't do a thing for anybody but the politicians stomping it

 

[tomm10]

Nothing like a little gun debate to keep Americans calm, eh?

Regardless of how individuals keep their own guns I do think it is important that Americans retain the RIGHT to "keep and bear arms". The framers of the constitution didn't include that to protect the country from outside invaders. If that was the case the amendment would have been something along the lines of "A kick @ss, federally funded and controlled army, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."

The point of the second amendment is to protect this country from invaders from within. It is part of the system of checks and balances designed to prevent an American Hitler from taking the country over. The armed forces are controlled by the government and more specifically the commander in chief. Without the right to keep and bear arms we are at the mercy of a leader we pray is sane.

This idea seems crazy to most. How could someone rise up and take over this country without being stopped. Read up on your history. Hitler taking over Germany was not done with brute force. There were no bombings or military attacks. He manipulated the system and the citizens. Those who opposed him had no way to defend themselves.

As for keeping personal arms? I think its everyone's own choice. I like the idea of people being licensed to own/carry guns even if just to ensure that they are mentally capable and knowledgeable enough to do so safely. I don't but only because I personally don't feel safe with them in the house. Others do and I understand it.

The idea that controlling guns controls crime is really pretty silly. I mean, look how the war on drugs is going. Hardly ever see drugs around now, huh? Please. Crack down HARD on people illegally posessing/distributing guns and you might get something.

Tom

 

[125gJoe]

Stop the madness - look at what the future might become!

...And further...

"I approve this message.... bla bla..."

 

[Snake Eyez]

Originally posted by kikuchiyo
daveedka: My war comment was only in response in the "these days" comment as that seemed to be the implication. I am Muslim and I don't think the war in iraq was necessary. Anytime anyone questions that they are un-American. I think America is less safe after the Iraq war than it was before. I understand Middle Eastern issue because I am Muslim and I know that the war was unnecessary. While I feel deep sympathy for the men and women in Iraq now (civilians as well as soldiers), that war was not for my defense. The Afghanistan war might have been worth it, that is up for debate. The Iraq war was not, and it is not un-American to say so. It is not un-American to not support an unjust war.

I'm not sure how you took my comment. I was only stating the people today want more things provided for them by the government. A perfect example is schools. It used to be that the primary function of schools was to teach. Now they have to teach, feed your student breakfast, and take care of them after normal school hours. IMO we the people shouldn't be demanding so much out of the government. I made no comment on being American or unAmerican.

Although I don't question the war in Iraq, since I believe it was needed, I understand those that question it. However, I do not understand those that question the war in Afgan. After 9-11, I thought it was the best course of action, rather than the inaction committed by the previous admin.