Pro 2nd amendment, but I see no reason for people on no-fly lists to be able to obtain weapons. The NRA (I believe) has advocated and lobbied for this type of legislation. I find it to be beyond moronic. As far as the talk about AR-15 bans, I'm in different. I don't need an AR-15 to defend me or my family from enemies.
And who do you impose it? Do not need do not buy. We are talking about that you can not take the opportunity to purchase AR-15 those who need it. Sense 2 amendments to it. 
Topic: What's your opinion of gun control? - page 90. (Read 450482 times)
Pro 2nd amendment, but I see no reason for people on no-fly lists to be able to obtain weapons. The NRA (I believe) has advocated and lobbied for this type of legislation. I find it to be beyond moronic. As far as the talk about AR-15 bans, I'm in different. I don't need an AR-15 to defend me or my family from enemies.
'no-fly' lists as implemented are a sick joke and as 'un-American' as anything to sprout up yet. Binding any other policy about anything to them is a very bad idea.
Fix no-fly lists to align with the basic principles and protections of our constitution _then_, after a reasonable period of trail, think about whether the foundation makes sense to build other projects on top of.
Given the frequency of actual non-state-sponsored baddies doing shit on an airplane, it looks to me like 'no-fly lists' were invented for the sole purpose of political and social harassment and remain alive for that purpose. Any student of history should get a chill down their spine when the government compiles and employs secret lists, and with good reason.
Pro 2nd amendment, but I see no reason for people on no-fly lists to be able to obtain weapons. The NRA (I believe) has advocated and lobbied for this type of legislation. I find it to be beyond moronic. As far as the talk about AR-15 bans, I'm in different. I don't need an AR-15 to defend me or my family from enemies.
Some think guns give security. And there is a relation between guns and security, but it is the opposite of what gun owners think. Someone I know had guns in her home, and now she is dead, her son is dead, and 5 other people are dead. That is the kind of security that guns provide. A gun in the home is 6 times as likely to kill a family member as an intruder. That is the kind of security that guns provide.
That's only because intruders are smart enough to go to the homes where there aren't any guns.
What little coward you didn't answer my question... so now you accept the use of violence?
Some think guns give security. And there is a relation between guns and security, but it is the opposite of what gun owners think. Someone I know had guns in her home, and now she is dead, her son is dead, and 5 other people are dead. That is the kind of security that guns provide. A gun in the home is 6 times as likely to kill a family member as an intruder. That is the kind of security that guns provide.
That's only because intruders are smart enough to go to the homes where there aren't any guns.
Floridastyle, nothing less!
Some think guns give security. And there is a relation between guns and security, but it is the opposite of what gun owners think. Someone I know had guns in her home, and now she is dead, her son is dead, and 5 other people are dead. That is the kind of security that guns provide. A gun in the home is 6 times as likely to kill a family member as an intruder. That is the kind of security that guns provide.
That's only because intruders are smart enough to go to the homes where there aren't any guns.
Weapons always help in good hands and kills in the wrong hands. Why limit good? I think this issue will soon be closed.
It is necessary that there is permission for smooth-bore weapon and no guns. Then we can house protection, and carry with them. 
A lot of statistics complications weapons with lethal consequences because of the fact that weapons are stored incorrectly and access a lot of people in the family. This needs to be corrected and controlled. Otherwise, the problem will be more than already exist.
Weapons always help in good hands and kills in the wrong hands. Why limit good? I think this issue will soon be closed.
Trump would probably be trying to strengthen gun control. He's probably not very happy with the popular protests by armed men. Protests will intensify.He was not afraid of the protests. And soon they will stop. And I do not think that the new president somehow affect gun control
Some think guns give security. And there is a relation between guns and security, but it is the opposite of what gun owners think. Someone I know had guns in her home, and now she is dead, her son is dead, and 5 other people are dead. That is the kind of security that guns provide. A gun in the home is 6 times as likely to kill a family member as an intruder. That is the kind of security that guns provide.
That's only because intruders are smart enough to go to the homes where there aren't any guns.
Weapons always help in good hands and kills in the wrong hands. Why limit good? I think this issue will soon be closed.
Trump would probably be trying to strengthen gun control. He's probably not very happy with the popular protests by armed men. Protests will intensify.He was not afraid of the protests. And soon they will stop. And I do not think that the new president somehow affect gun control
Weapons always help in good hands and kills in the wrong hands. Why limit good? I think this issue will soon be closed.
Trump would probably be trying to strengthen gun control. He's probably not very happy with the popular protests by armed men. Protests will intensify.
Laws and enforcement would take generations to have much impact on this if it came to that. In the mean time it is a nail in the coffin politically to screw with the 2nd. The only reason to move this ball (forward/backward) would be upon instruction from above. What Trump does here will be very telling about whether he feels the presidency of the U.S. to be the peak of control in this country, or whether he considers it a lower wrung on the ladder (as Obama clearly did.)
Weapons always help in good hands and kills in the wrong hands. Why limit good? I think this issue will soon be closed.
Trump would probably be trying to strengthen gun control. He's probably not very happy with the popular protests by armed men. Protests will intensify. 
Weapons always help in good hands and kills in the wrong hands. Why limit good? I think this issue will soon be closed.
Some think guns give security. And there is a relation between guns and security, but it is the opposite of what gun owners think. Someone I know had guns in her home, and now she is dead, her son is dead, and 5 other people are dead. That is the kind of security that guns provide. A gun in the home is 6 times as likely to kill a family member as an intruder. That is the kind of security that guns provide.
That's only because intruders are smart enough to go to the homes where there aren't any guns.
Guns are made for one purpose, and that purpose is to kill.
I believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it.
Guns are especially dangerous in the hands of people who don't know how to use them (i.e., kids and teenagers) as well as those who are mentally ill and/or have a temper problem.
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent.
After the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, support for gun control increased dramatically.
Generally in America, the support for gun control has outweighed the support for gun rights.
Are gun control laws constitutional?
What would be your ideal set of laws regarding firearms?
Gun was intended for militars, police, guards and other sectors that requires them for protection against bad people and criminals. it is right to control the use of gun since many people are taking for granted the use of their gun. like those high profiled people in this country, i am sure many of them have guns and even have no fear to kill other people. and other people are using their power to kill those small people. Gun control must be implemented in all country.
Some think guns give security. And there is a relation between guns and security, but it is the opposite of what gun owners think. Someone I know had guns in her home, and now she is dead, her son is dead, and 5 other people are dead. That is the kind of security that guns provide. A gun in the home is 6 times as likely to kill a family member as an intruder. That is the kind of security that guns provide.
That's only because intruders are smart enough to go to the homes where there aren't any guns.
Guns are made for one purpose, and that purpose is to kill.
I believe that guns are not weapons, they are tools. How they are used is up to the person holding it.
Guns are especially dangerous in the hands of people who don't know how to use them (i.e., kids and teenagers) as well as those who are mentally ill and/or have a temper problem.
Gun control will not stop violence because a violent person doesn’t need a gun to be violent.
After the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, support for gun control increased dramatically.
Generally in America, the support for gun control has outweighed the support for gun rights.
Are gun control laws constitutional?
What would be your ideal set of laws regarding firearms?
I'm talking about, and that is a dangerous man could kill not only the gun, and even a paper clip.
Yes I highly agree but it really depends on the owners perspective. Killing isnt good but if ur doing this for a self defense purposes i dont see any problem with that. And besides people nowaday espc those who were in drugs doing something out of the norms that might harm everyone of us. So yes gun is really needed but one thing is fpr sure if u use this it may also the cause of ur death.
YES I agree, Gun was made to kill. That's why gun is not for a citizens. Maybe just one in one million peoples still alive when they are hitted by a gun. Even if they are not die, they will goes to hospital.
Gun not hit anybody. Maybe bullet hit. Gun not hit.
The bullet is also not on their own kills people. Yet it manages people. It is important that this man knew what he was doing
Some think guns give security. And there is a relation between guns and security, but it is the opposite of what gun owners think. Someone I know had guns in her home, and now she is dead, her son is dead, and 5 other people are dead. That is the kind of security that guns provide. A gun in the home is 6 times as likely to kill a family member as an intruder. That is the kind of security that guns provide.
As a non-american I can say my country hardly has any guns and whilst there are still some gun crimes I do not in any way fear for my safety not having a gun, I think It'd take a huge culture change for the US to get rid of most of their guns but I do think it would improve the country in areas like less police shootings and such.
US already have it on every home so its going to be too late to collect everyone's gun.
I do think gun will always be a good protection for themselves. Guns aren't not meant only to kill but also to prevent crimes from happening.
As a non-american I can say my country hardly has any guns and whilst there are still some gun crimes I do not in any way fear for my safety not having a gun, I think It'd take a huge culture change for the US to get rid of most of their guns but I do think it would improve the country in areas like less police shootings and such.
Jump to: