Honestly, I can't understand why some liberals want to take away our right to own guns?

I truly cannot understand the idea that taking away citizen's guns would be a positive thing.. it defies all logic. Can't they see how easy it would be for the government to become a dictatorship if the citizens lost the right to bear arms??

Update:

for the record: I'm not a conservative, I'm a moderate.

28 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Why do all of these anti-gun liberals come up with outrageous lies like "When has any Democrat ever tried to ban guns?" or "Nobody wants to take your guns, we just want 'sensible' gun control."

    Well what did you call the Clinton gun ban then? It banned hundreds of semi-automatic rifles and handguns and also prohibited standard size detachable magazines for these weapons. The liberals made up lies and called them "assault weapons" and said that they were responsible for 'most' gun deaths. NEWSFLASH: ATF traces only 1% of these so-called "assault weapons" to murders! Thank God that the Republicans allowed that ridiculous law to sunset.

    Even though the ban had absolutely no effect on crime and outraged the majority of Americans Obama and Hillary Clinton still echo the same propaganda and publicly admit that they want to ban these guns and more. Still using the same "assault weapons ban" rhetoric as an excuse to ban any gun that is not a bolt action rifle or pump shotgun. Remember the "assault weapons ban" only prohibts SEMI-automatics. Fully automatic machine guns and assault rifles were banned in 1986 and have been heavily restricted since the 1934 National Firearms Act.

    If Obama or the Democrats don't want to restrict my right to keep and bear arms then how do you explain these facts?

    FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.

    FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.

    FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.

    FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.

    FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.

    FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.

    FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.

    FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

    FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.

    FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”

    FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.

    FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.

    FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.

    FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.

    FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.

    FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.

    FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.

    FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month sales restrictions.

    FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.

    FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.

    FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.

  • 1 decade ago

    Well...I'm more lib than conserv, but I have to say I am pro a little more gun control. Other countries, such as England, have them in place and they do not have high rates of gun-related deaths that we do. They are also not a dictatorship. Your argument that if we lost the right to bear arms would make it easy to become so is a fallacy.

    Have you researched what the 2nd ammendment actually says? it talks about the right to form a militia and their rights (the milita) to bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't necessarily mean we can have all the machine guns and automatic pistols we want.

    I not against owning guns outright, I am against making public weapons of mass destruction (you can call a machine gun that) available for private citizens. I am also in favor of making owning a gun even harder.

    Yes, I am fully aware that criminals will get their hands on these things anyway, but shouldn't we at least try to make it more difficult? However, when I see other countries who have stricter gun laws than we do, and see that their criminals are not really armed to the teeth, I don't understand why that can't work here? Are we really a society that is beyond hope for peace? Are we really chock full of violent people that we have to arm ourselves just because the bad guys are armed? That makes me sad.

    It's proven that when you bring a gun into a bad situation, it escalates the violence and raises the odds of a fatality.

    Anyway, you asked for opinions, and that's mine.

    Source(s): PS I come from a family of hunters and have been around them my whole life
  • kagmi
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    We've lived so long in a society where the government and the people have had relatively good relations that the issue of government tyranny isn't even on some people's radar. Even I myself am more worried about the issue of the personal defense of law-abiding citizens when it comes to the issue of gun ownership.

    The liberals who are against gun ownership assume that since guns are used in many murders, those murders would not happen without guns. That is of course ridiculous; as we've seen in Japan recently, murderers are not murderers because they have guns. If they don't have guns, they will find another way to kill people.

    The only thing accomplished by outlawing guns is ensuring that criminals will be the only ones that have them. If we can't keep criminals from possessing illegal drugs, how do we expect to prevent them from possessing guns? If law-abiding citizens turn in their guns and criminals keep them...well, you do the math on what that would do to our social power structure.

  • RJR
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    TOO MUCH CRAP HERE.

    The libs say they don't want to take guns away- they just want to regulate them. Regulations are STIPULATIONS and stipulations are infringements unless that facilitate and promote the right itself.

    Everyone wants to quote the part about " A well trained militia" and say that it applies to the military. The militia at the time of the founding fathers were ordinary citizens who made themselves available in time of need to protect their friends and neighbors from danger or attack.

    I think that if the libs would like to regulate they should see to it that every able bodied American who can legally own a firearm is trained to and maintains one in their home and or on their person.

    We all know that the goal is to do the opposite. Fear is how the government rules us. Fear of terrorism, fear of drugs, fear of crime.

    "Vote for me and I'll protect you!"

    That promise has been made by countless candidates since the birth of this nation. Rarely have any of them had the guts to actually fulfill that promise.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • COOKIE
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    For those of you who think it can't happen...

    what about if they sneak it into another bill?

    Like Feinstein tried to do the 5 year amnesty

    clause for illegal aliens.

    Like obama is trying to do with OUR GUNS

    with the Global Poverty Act.

    Wherein, not only will it cost the U.S. $845

    billion dollars more than we give to global aid now,

    but...[and this has nothing to do with poverty...but

    it's in the bill]

    "the U.S. would also be required to surrender some of its own sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to "BANNING SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS,"

    but also to ratifying a series of objectionable treaties ..."

    NOTE: This is for the "contributing" nations..

    not the receiving nations. If we give money,

    we give up our guns??? Does this make

    sense to anyone??

    Please read the second topic on

    "Bill Forces U.S. to Give 'Til It Hurts"

    http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WA08B18

  • 1 decade ago

    Intelligent people will invest heavy in many guns before this election is over. Guns and ammo plus a major catch of supplies buried safely. Best try and get into fighting shape, too.

    Fighting in Bagdad will look like a high

    ladies club bridge game compared to

    what is shaping up, my friend.

    Leave early or be prepared

    to stand and fight until the

    last man.

  • 1 decade ago

    People died for the right to bear arms and I agree with you. As long as we enforce existing laws, we should have the right to defend ourselves with a gun. If criminals knew there was a gun near by, they would think twice as well.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No-one has suggested taking away all guns. Various laws have been proposed to reduce the number of certain types of weapon in circulation. Remember the controlling clause in the second amendment - 'a WELL-REGULATED militia...' This clause implies the Congress has the right to regulate the use of fireams by civilians.

    I don't have a problem with someone having a hand gun for protection, or a rifle for hunting; but no-one needs a machine gun or a rocket launcher for those purposes.

  • 1 decade ago

    That's easy -- It's all about power. Unarmed people are easy to control. But it's not like anybody would stand up for their 2nd Amendment rights today anyway. The govt DID confiscate guns after Katrina, and nobody rose up against it. So, all you who say they're not coming after your guns, look at recent history. Sad.

    Terry, you're wrong. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting or self defense...it's about defending against tyranny. And machine guns, tanks, and stealth fighters should all be legal to defend ourselves against our own government.

  • 1 decade ago

    If you conservatives are so concerned about the government overreaching and encroaching upon our rights, why the **** don't you care about warrantless wiretapping? Conservatives have pushed this government MUCH closer to a dictatorship than liberals have (granted, it's still pretty far off).

    Honestly, I can't understand why some conservatives want to take away our right not to be spied on without a warrant?

    Can't they see how east it would be for the government to become a dictatorship if the citizens lost the fourth amendment?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.