GOP and guns, is the concept of law and order too difficult for them to comprehend?
- Uncle PennybagsLv 76 years agoFavorite Answer
Here is the GOP (Conservative) policy on guns.
Law Abiding citizens have the right to own guns. Misuse of guns is a crime and are punishable. That's called LAW AND ORDER!
What you Dems seek to do is something else entirely. You want to ban or restrict guns on the assumption that those guns might be misused. You are preemptively infringing on a right on the grounds it might be misused.
Let's put this another way. We have free speech, right? Yet everyone knows that free speech is not absolute, right? The classic example is you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Well, that's an example of misuse of a right and should be punished.
If you Libs treated the 1st Amendment like the 2nd Amendment, you would require muzzles on theater goers so they could not yell "Fire." You would preemptively restrict them, even though they haven't done anything wrong, because they might misuse that right.
Get it? Do you comprehend the difference?
- RupertLv 46 years ago
I'm not a fan of GOP and I don't watch Law and Order, but most conservatives I know do like their guns and are very law abiding. They know most of the thousands upon thousands of gun laws and follow them meticulously-- even the many silly laws, kinda like a game or puzzle to many, trying to comprehend and follow the BATF laws that can put you away as a felon for decades over an arbitrary detail.
Follow up question for you: Since you are implying there is no concept or comprehension of law and/or order for people who like guns, do you comprehend the current laws? Look into what constitutes a SBR, for example, or the 922r laws and see A) how many laws there actually are B) How comprehensible they often are and C) How arbitrary they can be.
- DifdiLv 66 years ago
Actually, it's not too difficult for the GOP to understand. Generally speaking, the Republicans have a better grasp of firearm laws than the Democrats do.
For example, did you know that if you call 911 for help and the police can't help you (or decide that finishing their coffee is more important than your life), the only people legally liable for any harm that befalls you due to police inaction are you and the criminal who harmed you? Police have a duty to defend the government, to maintain public order and to investigate crimes (after they happen). Police have no duty whatsoever to protect individual citizens from anything at all.
Every statute in the nation assumes that citizens are able and willing to defend themselves. The statutes assume that citizens have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms and assume that as the most interested party in their own safety, that they will exercise that right. If a citizen chooses not to exercise their rights and passively waits to be defended by police instead, then the only person with a duty to defend them has chosen not to do so.
This is all proven by the reaction by courts (from the lowest to the highest) to lawsuits against police for failing to defend individual citizens. Without exception, police win those cases because police have no duty to defend individuals -- that duty lies solely in those individuals.
- AndrewLv 66 years ago
What does the concept of law and order have to do with guns or gun control?
Several large metropolitan areas ban private gun ownership - like Chicago, for example. It has made NO difference in the rate of gun crimes; not one tiny bit up OR down.
Why? Because criminals want guns, so if they're not available in Chicago they have them smuggled in.
I note that cocaine and pot are not legally available in Chicago. The criminals get that smuggled in, often from as far away as Columbia. I submit, getting guns smuggled in the same way would not exactly be difficult, especially since guns won't trip chemical sensors or be sniffed out by drug dogs.
And in a pinch, a decent machinist with a few basic machine tools can turn out a simple gun like an AK in a matter of hours. Are we going to ban machine tools as well?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- D.E.M.Lv 66 years ago
I think if you check it is the law and the law of the land that we are allowed firearms. Democrats, Republicans and Independents all have and practice the right to own firearms. Read the Constitution.
Next if you check the courts stated that it is not the responsibility of the police to stop a crime or to protect an individual. They are there to find the perpetrator after the crime is committed. It is an individuals responsibility to defend and protect themselves.
SO back at you what do you not understand about the concept of law and order?
- wtincLv 76 years ago
Don't think so the problem appears to be liberals who do not understand that without citizens being able to have guns there is no order. The law will still be the same. Just look at Chicago there is no order there because citizens are not allowed to defend themselves so the bad guys do as they please.
- Shaun HoltLv 66 years ago
Liberals and guns, is the concept of constitutional rights too difficult for them to understand?Source(s): Conservative.
- 6 years ago
Not difficult at all.
- ArnieLv 76 years ago
The bad guys prefer unarmed victims!!.
When seconds matter calling 911 and asking the bad guy to wait is not a viable option.
Better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it!!!
**Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens.**
“We are told NOT to judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few fanatics."
We are encouraged TO judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics”
- JosephLv 56 years ago
Obviously, you are confused! It's the criminal coddling Dems (with their; you can't prosecute him! He's just being targeted because of his race!) that don't understand the concept of law and order!