Topic: Do you own a firearm? - page 5. (Read 4435 times)

same

People historically had the right to own a weapon and defend themselves.
I honestly don't see any reason against the right to own one, please enlighten me.

I have nothing against paying for a permit, taking tests or registering a weapon. I'm a responsible person without a criminal record, why would someone restrict my access to weapons?

Ofcourse, use it for hunting, my favorite hobby

What if the unborn is a blood clot?

No I don't. Never really thought about it.

how is owning some pieces of metal compared to killing a unborn human.

all humans have inalienable rights including the unborn.

Yep.  And gun control debates on forums will go on forever.  They are tantamount to "Your religion is wrong, and here's why" threads.  Point, counter-point, counter-counter, etc.  Nothing solved and nobody changes their mind.. 

*yawn*

I think some of the misunderstanding about guns comes from where you grew up in America. Outside of the cities gun ownership is extremely common. As a kid I seriously did not know anyone who did not own a gun. When I moved to a city later on I had no neighbors who owned a gun. Most of them were very intimidated by the thought of guns. They related them to violence, which makes sense. The only time they heard about guns is when there was a shooting of a person.

People who know about guns relate them to good times with friends. They relate them to competition and personal challenge. For example, this weekend I was a target puller at the state PALMA and F class shooting championship. It was about as violent as a round of golf.

The problem is that those people who know nothing about guns want to address their problems of violence by making rules for people who have nothing to do with the problem. I fail to see how another rule is the solution for gun violence in a place like Chicago. Criminals do not obey rules. That means that gun control laws only further disadvantage law abiding citizens by leaving them unarmed.

Gun control is to the left what abortion is to the right. An emotional issue about those who want to make rules for other people to obey. An effort to control the perceived misbehavior of people and force them to accept your beliefs.  

How many people a year are killed by a "lawful gun owner' who generally kills his wife and children in their beds"? I'll make it easier...what percentage of Americans will not be killed by the " 'lawful gun owner' who generally kills his wife and children in their beds"? 
Show us the stats and prove that there's a 'crisis'!You run your big mouth all the time with wild accusations and hyperbole, but you never prove it. 

That's bullshit and has always been bullshit. Unless you live in Chicago you are more likely to be shot by your lover or spouse or someone who knows you. Its the "lawful gun owner' who generally kills his wife and children in their beds....not gang members or criminals.

Again, most gun deaths are the suicides you liberals support. Most of the rest are inner-city gangs killing each other, so if you are not suicidal, not a gang member, don't deal in drugs, and you are not a cop, your chances of being shot in America are near zero.

The gun 'crisis', like so many other 'emergencies', is liberal hogwash being used as an excuse to further limit the rights of We, the People. There is no gun crisis, and if you are as smart as you claim you are, then you damn know it.

I want a gun buy i want to make one

Our many tens of millions of Gun Owners have them for many reasons, self protection being only one of them.

The positive element is that we typically vote according to our Freedom from Government involvement in our lives, except the 18 elements in our Constitution.

I'm willing to consider any measure that is guaranteed to drastically cut down on crime without violating our right to keep and bear arms. If you can't guarantee that, then no, I will not support another useless law on top of the 29,000 already on the books.

Having people go through background checks to make sure they are not criminals is not infringing on their right to own a gun, you twit.  When they pass the check, they get their permit, and they get their gun. No infringement. There's nothing in the second amendment that says that it cannot be regulated, and the Supreme Court has already long since upheld that principle. The only way there would be infringement on the right to keep and bear arms is if they were refused the permit or the firearms ID card in spite of the fact that the check comes back clean. So you tell me, what part of "shall not be infringed" do YOU not understand?

Who needs firearms when you  have vicious guard pets? At pitbull …...or a crazy cat !   

Where do you citizens of Jersey go to get your Free Speech permits?  What the fuck about "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

What's your source for making that claim?

It's called an opinion - and one based in sound logic. The problem you and I have is that you seem to think I'm calling this a magic bullet - which I'm not, and without a magic bullet, you're unwilling to consider ANY  measures.

What I'm saying is that a national policy will help in two major ways - first, it will reduce availability (notice I said reduce, not eliminate) of black market guns by shutting down at least PART of the flow source by making unregistered sales illegal everywhere.

.........if gun registration is the law and you refuse to comply with it, you're not a law abiding citizen.