Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentGovernment · 7 years ago

When libs refer to "Gun control" are they actually referring to banning guns?

I mean, Time and time again, If they start out controlling something, They eventually want it banned altogether

11 Answers

Relevance
  • gatita
    Lv 7
    7 years ago
    Best Answer

    Absolutely!!! I offer these videos as an example of gun control in Great Britain and Australia.

    Thousands of Guns Confiscated & Destroyed in Australia Results in More Crime

    http://conservativevideos.com/2013/01/thousands-of...

    History of Countries who have banned firearms: BANNED Pt 1/2

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVgqtnpBSPk

    History of Countries who have banned firearms: BANNED Pt 2/2

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3kpuYALCng -.

    Rumblings of Dictatorship

    http://conservativevideos.com/2013/01/rumblings-of...

    Australia

    Now a video of the idiot who sent guns to Mexico which only aided the drug cartels.

    January 12, 2013 at 8:54 am

    Eric Holder: Gun Owners Should Be ‘Brainwashed’ to Cower in Shame Like Smokers

    http://conservativevideos.com/2013/01/eric-holder-...

    Please note Holder himself is a smoker!!

    Also, Obama Gives Himself Armed Protection For Life

    No problem with the question that former presidents may need protection. Just a bit hypocritical that he is entitled to armed protection, but you are not. Some are more equal than others.

    Former presidents have to give up rides on Air Force One. But now they don’t have to give up being shadowed by the armed-and-earpieced bodyguards of the Secret Service.

    President Barack Obama on Thursday signed into a law a measure giving him, George W. Bush and future former presidents and their spouses lifetime Secret Service protection, the White House announced. The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid-1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected.

    Where is the concern of this egotistical President for our right to self protection? There is NONE!

    Unfortunately, in the aftermath of recent carnage in a Colorado movie theater and a rampage at an elementary school in Connecticut, some now insist that "We the People" must accept some alterations in how we interpret the "archaic" language contained in our Constitution. On Jan. 9, after a meeting with "gun safety advocates" and "victims groups," Vice President Joe Biden -- head of the "White House task force on gun violence" -- said the Obama administration is "determined to take action" and then added: "The president is going to act. There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet."

    The role of gun ownership has always been emotionally charged, but Sandy Hook’s news has again heightened the rhetoric. This debate has spilled over and has become international.

    Anti-gun lobbyists consider the Second Amendment antiquated, asking what militias could protect us from today. The pro-gun side answers: “Tyrants”, citing King George III, Hitler’s Germany, or another event so seemingly distant that the argument seems academic. Even some who want stricter controls might concede the home-defense argument. But they would never want Joe Public armed with the sorts of guns carried by soldiers and police. Are militias relevant today?

    Do you think it strange that citizens might be called to grab their gun, and rush to the defense of their community or region against some threat? Why is it strange? Small towns do the same thing with volunteer fire departments. Bankers, plumbers, or gym teachers, all become firemen when there’s a fire raging. You can’t wait for experts to put out the fire, everybody gets involved. That same principle describes a militia.

    The relevant Amendment reads: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    gatita

    Degree in history (focus Jewish studies) and Spanish New Mexico State U. 1990

  • 7 years ago

    It has always been their goal to ban private ownership of guns. But if they stated that, they would have a war on their hands. So they must go at it bit by bit. You know, ban this one now and another one later. Liberals are patient. They know that they must institute things slowly if they have any hope of achieving their goals. In fact, do a web search on sixty truths about liberals.

  • 7 years ago

    Not only do they want to ban guns altogether, they want to completely disarm the people. The DHS bought >1.6 BILLION rounds of hollowed point ammunition. What exactly is a DOMESTIC organization planning to do with rounds too expensive for training purposes?

  • 7 years ago

    Every time a liberal tells me we need more gun control, I say " yes you are right I should be using both hands when target shooting".

    @R-mare- once again you prove to be even more stupid than I thought. Let me ask you this did all those laws stop drunk driving, did it stop the thousands of deaths caused by drivers. No It didn't.

    gun control isn't going to stop gun violence, but only make it worse.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • NOT ONE of these people saying liberals do not want to ban guns will cite ANY sort of firearm liberals have not ALREADY banned nor tried to ban.

  • 7 years ago

    No they don't, and that is a scare tactic of the gun lobby. No reasonable person, liberal or conservative want to ban all guns, and all sides know it can't be done.

    But something will be done, the public does demand it. Whether it be regulations or restrictions on high capacity magazines, or specifically defined assault type weapons.

  • Tai
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    It depends. Some of the more extremist ones want guns banned, but most are sensible and just want better following of registration and licensing requirements.

  • M'kay
    Lv 6
    7 years ago

    there goal is to start small with registration and making it near impossible to buy guns or ammo. then they will take more and more until they try for a all out ban.

  • mark
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    You mean like gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research

    You cannot be so ignorant of our constitution to realize that guns cannot be banned. Yet, even conservative justices have said that there is plenty of room to control certain types of weapons

    Most of us want assault weapons and large clips banned. and some want hand guns controlled. Either/both of these things can be done within the constitution.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    No. Many gun advocates recently have pointed out "Well, cars kill people, too, so should we outlaw cars?" Here's the thing: with cars, we have passed laws making it illegal to drive while drinking or on drugs, requiring the use of seatbelts, making sure all cars and all drivers are registered and all drivers pass a driving and informational test, requiring people to carry insurance, requiring the auto companies to make cars safer with features like air bags, making drivers accountable for unsafe driving both economically and legally, setting safe speed limits, etc. And these laws have greatly reduced fatal car accidents and made our highways safer.

    So what would be wrong with passing similar laws to make guns and gun use safer?

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.