Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
If by that you mean prevent criminals from having guns I don't think any one is going to disagree. If by that you mean their are bad guns, that law abiding trained citizens shouldn't have, I'll have to disagree. Their are only bad people, not bad inanimate objects.
Does the constitution mention training? Why allow the government to potentially regulate guns through training requirements? They could make someone do 5,000 hours of expensive training and in effect ban guns. Surely a well armed militia shouldn't be controlled by a centralised government's ideas of gun safety training requirements?
I would mostly (99.9%) agree. What I was saying is that most law abiding gun owners have had training of some kind, be it formal or in formal. Not that the government should control it.
[1 point]1 year ago by dr1024ReplyEdited 1 year ago by dr1024
Sure enough. For instance, in all his name-calling of me, he never noticed that I am opposed to gun control as it is currently done and proposed. Would really mess up his world view to find that no every one is as programmed and one-sided as he.
[1 point]1 year ago by dauguyReplyEdited 1 year ago by dauguy
That's what you said about the GOP winning the election. You have proven that you have no substance. Time and time and time again. Information coming from you is based on fiction and will continue to be disregarded by almost everyone that comes in contact with it. You will see...
The above is an example of an ignorant, self-serving, uneducated, gossip mongering, low class, and dangerous moron. I might buy a gun just to protect myself and family from this idiot and others like him.
Huh! 'Flu, eh? They should eat more fresh fruit. Ha. Right. Now, self-defence. Tonight I shall be carrying on from where we got to last week when I was showing you how to defend yourselves against anyone who attacks you with armed with a piece of fresh fruit.
(Grumbles from all)
Palin:
Oh, you promised you wouldn't do fruit this week.
Sgt.:
What do you mean?
Jones:
We've done fruit the last nine weeks.
Sgt.:
What's wrong with fruit? You think you know it all, eh?
Palin:
Can't we do something else?
Idle (Welsh):
Like someone who attacks you with a pointed stick?
Sgt.:
Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit....
That doesn't achieve parity, that just make the biggest and strongest the most well off. It is truly the gun that evens the field like no other and makes us all equal.
Their is no way, for example, an 80 year old woman could reasonably hope to fend off a 20 year old attacking man if they where both armed with pointy sticks. (or even if only she had the pointy stick.) 99 times out of 100 the 20 year old attacker will win. Now with guns they are both far more equal.
I don't think our founding fathers were thinking of semi-automatic weapons, when all they had were muskets when they declared we should have the rights to bear arms.
But their point was to ensure that the people could never be oppressed by their government. It's a last-resort to be sure, but back then it wasn't an unreasonable idea to ensure that the people could ensure their government was always in check.
The point is rather moot if all the people have are slingshots while the government has all the semi-automatic weapons, isn't it?
The musket was the equivalent of the assultrifle of the day. It was the best weapon an individual soldier in the army could hope to have. That is what they where thinking.
I think the modern equivalent is anything the police can have, a law abiding civilian citizen should be able to have. Can the police have hand grenades, bombs and stinger missiles? No, nor should the average citizen. Can the police have pistils, rifles, shotguns, "assault rifles", etc? Yes, and so should trained law abiding citizens.
United Kingdom
Strongly disagree. But please lets regulate who should be allowed what type of gun (if any)
If by that you mean prevent criminals from having guns I don't think any one is going to disagree. If by that you mean their are bad guns, that law abiding trained citizens shouldn't have, I'll have to disagree. Their are only bad people, not bad inanimate objects.
Does the constitution mention training? Why allow the government to potentially regulate guns through training requirements? They could make someone do 5,000 hours of expensive training and in effect ban guns. Surely a well armed militia shouldn't be controlled by a centralised government's ideas of gun safety training requirements?
I would mostly (99.9%) agree. What I was saying is that most law abiding gun owners have had training of some kind, be it formal or in formal. Not that the government should control it.
Why do you even have to be law-abiding? Can ex-cons not protect themselves? And what about non-citizens?
This comment was deleted.
[3 points] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplySpent some money this morning. Mags and a new upper.
This comment was deleted.
[-3 points] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyThe above is an example of a no-class, sore loser!
Sure enough. For instance, in all his name-calling of me, he never noticed that I am opposed to gun control as it is currently done and proposed. Would really mess up his world view to find that no every one is as programmed and one-sided as he.
This comment was deleted.
[1 point] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyThis comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyThat's what you said about the GOP winning the election. You have proven that you have no substance. Time and time and time again. Information coming from you is based on fiction and will continue to be disregarded by almost everyone that comes in contact with it. You will see...
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyWhat a great plan!
The above is an example of an ignorant, self-serving, uneducated, gossip mongering, low class, and dangerous moron. I might buy a gun just to protect myself and family from this idiot and others like him.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 1 year ago by deleted user Reply"left-leaning, tax & spend, liberal acting, socialist loving, anti-Second Amendment Muslim schooled turkey" were incorrect.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyForget it. You're not worth it. Just a mosquito.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyBecause it was 60 degrees today, mosquito.
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyWOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Absolutely not. It is important to be armed if your government is.
And any banned weapons should be banned for everyone, citizen or government.
"pointed sticks" all round then? :))
If that's what it takes to achieve parity.
Sgt.:
Huh! 'Flu, eh? They should eat more fresh fruit. Ha. Right. Now, self-defence. Tonight I shall be carrying on from where we got to last week when I was showing you how to defend yourselves against anyone who attacks you with armed with a piece of fresh fruit.
(Grumbles from all)
Palin:
Oh, you promised you wouldn't do fruit this week.
Sgt.:
What do you mean?
Jones:
We've done fruit the last nine weeks.
Sgt.:
What's wrong with fruit? You think you know it all, eh?
Palin:
Can't we do something else?
Idle (Welsh):
Like someone who attacks you with a pointed stick?
Sgt.:
Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit....
teehee!
You can't keep a government afraid of its people if it is better armed!
That doesn't achieve parity, that just make the biggest and strongest the most well off. It is truly the gun that evens the field like no other and makes us all equal.
Their is no way, for example, an 80 year old woman could reasonably hope to fend off a 20 year old attacking man if they where both armed with pointy sticks. (or even if only she had the pointy stick.) 99 times out of 100 the 20 year old attacker will win. Now with guns they are both far more equal.
I am far more worried about what my government will do to me than what another citizen will. Look at its track record.
This comment was deleted.
[-2 points] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyI can't believe how much I agree with you on this. I guess my Libertarian side is showing B^)
Time to ban pointy sticks.
NO ONE CAN HAVE MY POINTY STICK!! I MADE IT AND ITS MIIIINE!!!
*holds up bag of marshmallows. Hopes sheepy will toast two at a time*
*holds up graham crackers and chocolate*!!!
*eyes light with thoughts of sticky smile*!!!
I don't think our founding fathers were thinking of semi-automatic weapons, when all they had were muskets when they declared we should have the rights to bear arms.
Maybe.
But their point was to ensure that the people could never be oppressed by their government. It's a last-resort to be sure, but back then it wasn't an unreasonable idea to ensure that the people could ensure their government was always in check.
The point is rather moot if all the people have are slingshots while the government has all the semi-automatic weapons, isn't it?
Hell, the gov have tanks, THAT'S what you should be fighting the right for
Well... actually, in the U.S. private citizens do have a right to own tanks, and some actually do.
Jay Leno bought a tank for its engine: http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/jay_leno_garage/1302941.html
Tanks for sale:
http://www.military-vehicles.us/military-tanks-for-sale.shtml#army-tanks-for-sale
We can have tanks, but when it comes to the small caliber stuff, some of it is off limits. Go figure.
This comment was deleted.
[-1 points] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyThe musket was the equivalent of the assultrifle of the day. It was the best weapon an individual soldier in the army could hope to have. That is what they where thinking.
I think the modern equivalent is anything the police can have, a law abiding civilian citizen should be able to have. Can the police have hand grenades, bombs and stinger missiles? No, nor should the average citizen. Can the police have pistils, rifles, shotguns, "assault rifles", etc? Yes, and so should trained law abiding citizens.
In the uk they have tried to ban or make it difficult for public ownership , but gun crime has gone up
This comment was deleted.
[0 points] 1 year ago by deleted user ReplyCoincidence or correlation? There may be more to it than just drawing a line between 2 points.
It also makes a great deal of sense.