Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't know that our Secretary of State is strong in support of the UN treaty that would make gun control part of our law? Sure you know about that.
Roy...your posts are getting more fearful with a twinge of paranoia. I know that a little paranoia is good since it denotes awareness....but come on!
You can be gun owner who supports gun control. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I know there are varying degrees of ownership and gun "control", but why would anyone support something where they would end up limiting themselves?
I don't "love" my guns, I keep them around for amusement and defense of my animals and myself from predatory animals (of bipedal AND quadripedal sorts).
The best gun control is firearms safety education starting at an early age, and the safety being engaged.
You can be gun owner who supports gun control. The two are not mutually exclusive.
But describing that requires more attention that most will pay to a P&OC post.
The main distinction is trying to draw a line between the underlying principle at the legal and really philosophical level
and the actual dirty hands street level of attempting to manage what (some) people will far too often do with those guns...
but that just leads to the other philosophical argument of attempting to support the absurd position of making natural state agricultural products illegal on any level and that then goes to the other absurdity of making the use or even abuse of pharmaceutical products anything other than a medical matter.
I'm willing to bet that the fellows who recently kicked my door down and stole my handguns would also vote for the Democratic Party a political party that not only wants their handguns but yours as well.
On the issue of banning handguns, that has already happened to poorer Americans. Anyone who has recently replaced a handgun will quickly realize that the bizarre laws controlling their sales have caused such high prices that only the middle class and wealthy Americans can own one.
I am a gun owner and used to compete. I have no issue with a waiting period or background checks in fact I favor the above. What I take issue with is individual cities violating the individuals rights. If you pass your states background check or any states for that matter you should have the right to carry.
Some laws amaze me. If you have an intruder try to retreat to a safe room in your house and lock the door. Call the police and wait for help. If the intruder is threatening your life you may defend yourself.
No if an intruder is in your house shoot them then call the police and advise them to send the bus.
Now Gallup finds only 26% support for a ban on handguns, and even a majority now opposes a ban on (so-called) assault rifles (that surprised me).
Gee, "only" 26 percent. That's just about more of the voting block than all the members of "third parties" combined. Hardly "statistically insignificant" such that we could or should ignore it on those grounds alone. I'd call that "Red Alert" status... but of course there was never a point in my lifetime when I thought we weren't at red alert status on this issue, despite the continual assurances from the head-in-the-sand ostriches who keep trying to make us all believe that it's largely a non-issue (gun laws being at an all time high indicates quite the opposite).
If 30 percent of the people in this country wanted rigid Sharia law, rigid Old Testament law, new and sweeping rigid restrictions on the First Amendment, bringing back slavery or new sweeping legislation against homosexuals, etc... we'd damn well be on red alert status, and it would gain prime time television attention on a daily basis, as it should (and not coincidentally - many of these issues do actually make the daily prime-time news - because thirty percent holding these views is a substantial threat). But because we are dealing with a liberty that remains the red headed step-child, we're told to just be cool, nothing much to see here, move along, the thirty percent won't cause problems for us, so we shouldn't be too vocal being worried about it. These same people telling us not to worry about it would more than likely be leading the charge if the threat was to a liberty they valued.
If more people want guns or fewer restrictions on them, I take that as a bad sign. It means more people are afraid. Gun ownership is a response to a threat and it is in and of itself just another threat, a form of terrorism in fact. I really don't understand how the ability to defend yourself using terror or the ability to maim or kill your fellow man with a weapon should be a cherished freedom. Wouldn't the freedom from such destruction be better? I don't own a gun, don't want one, won't defend myself against somebody who's intent on using one against me since the real error in judgment will be theirs, not mine. The violent and criminal, they bear the burden. Why does everybody else have to participate and where's the benefit?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gallup: support for gun control at all-time low
