reply to post by sumperson
"but I believe that the sane, stable, law-abiding citizens should be able to have one if they want it."
Who is to decide who is Sane and stable, and just how sane and stable should one be - be very careful with generalizations on this subject. And who
would be considered one who abides in the law, and what laws broken should be disqualifiers. Would a person who follows the Constituition be
considered unlawful? thats a fair question. Is the seat belt law constitutional? How about those who don't agree with unlawful taxation.
Generalizations are what ultimately will find this country disarmed.
"But the better question would be who and what gives you the power and or ability to tell me what I can and cannot own? "
Hello my new friend
'I will admit that I really don't know much on the subject. I really need to do some research before I say yes or no."
Thank you for your honesty
"Once the legal precedent of 'collective rights' exists, what's going to stop the Courts from deciding that other rights are only 'collective'
Hello my new friend
"I also believe that the states should be allowed to regulate the ownership of these weapons. "
For you I provide this:
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
You have this right because it is your right and no one can take it away.
Again be careful of generalizations just what is law-abiding?
"As a British Citizen, i do in fact believe that handguns at least should be made available to the general public, so long as the general public
agrees to sign up for licensing."
Licensing is asking for permission. It is the right (of Americans) to bear arms - it does not require permission.
"As soon as I pulled my gun, my would-be mugger set a new world record for the 100 meter dash. No shot was fired, and this old fella was
Are you suggesting that your possession of a gun thwarted the commission of a crime? Get it people? This is how it works. Well done !
"I will probably buy one when I am old enough, even though I hate them. The worlds getting worse and worse every day. I want to be able to defend
Utilize you rights lest they be taken from you. Well done.
"it"s possible that some in our government are now beginning to fall into the tyrannical trap that all governments do over time. They would be much
further along have if they knew the citizens were not capable of armed resistance."
Let us learn from the mistakes of our past lest we commit them again. Historically no Dictatorship has ever moved against their people without first
disarming them. Well done!
"My response is, no-one should have the power or authority to deny any individual the right or the means to defend him/herself anywhere in the World.
Bingo! Well done!
"Criminals have 'em to commit crimes, law abiding citizens should be allowed to have them to kill criminals that intend to do them harm."
This is what scares a lot of gun grabbers. We don't possess guns to kill (yes they do) what will historically happen is the more people openly armed,
the less people will be killed. Having a gun in your possession does not necessitate its use. Possession alone is a deterrent.
"we should be able to have fully automatic assault rifles or any arms if we want to. It was supposed to be a right. "
Absolutely correct! The balance of power must be maintained. The M-16 assault rifle in particular should be the most protected weapon of all under the
I'm going to leave it at that. That pretty much runs the gambit. In answer to the question.
"WE ARE" absolutely allowed to have guns. No if and or buts - end of discussion.