| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | SharonParry (46)
10/19/2006 | I am a proud member of the NRA and don't want anyone telling me I can't own a firearm, BUT, without some sort of control this country would be in a * of a bad shape. Truth...most firearm accidents and crimes are committed by people who are not eligible to own them in the first place. Can you imagine what might happen if we had no regulations at all?
(7 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | GenghisTheHun (177)
06/02/2006 | This is the Holy Grail for most leftos and a huge gaggle of Democrats.
That stand kept Al Gore out of the White House. He lost the Democratic stronghold of West Virginia because of that issue. If WV had followed its ancient pattern, Al Gore would be hearing "Hail to the Chief."
What is the problem here? The lefto mopes have the thought that, "Gee, everyone is basically good. If we just take away the 'bad' instruments, then everything is going to be ok!
It is knives, spears, guns, billy-clubs, etc. that makes people go bad. If we remove the 'bad' items, crime will just go away."
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | trebon1038 (65)
05/24/2006 | No way. It is a proven fact that many criminals have gotten their weopons illegally. New York state has some of the toughest gun control laws in the country...and a pretty high number of crimes with guns.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Djahuti (57)
02/19/2006 | I guess Cheney had to take the "Gun Control is being able to hit your target" sticker off of his limo,huh?....Jokes aside,I am 100% FOR the right to bear arms.I know that the citizens in the NRA are not the ones out committing crimes with handguns.They are mostly sportsmen,law officers etc. and use their firearms for hunting,shooting targets,and self defense.(protecting their homes and families.)I am ,however,in favor of strict adherence to licenses,permits and gun safety.The sale of firearms needs to be strictly monitored.If someone breaks the law,they should lose the right to bear arms.You should have to be a full fledged citizen and pass safety tests to get a permit or license.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | MariusQelDroma (36)
01/22/2006 | Gun control should start firstly with the hand of the owner keeping that piece pointed only at what you intend to shoot, for starters. Control your own weapon and access to it. Now for the government stepping in and setting some limits, I can actually agree with some. Making it more difficult for criminals to obtain a gun at a gun store with an instant background check makes sense to me. Helping to prevent suicides by keeping guns away from mentally and/or emotionally unstable individuals also doubles as a way to protect the public at large, not just that particular person. The wholesale banning, seizure, and destruction of firearms, I will not agree to. Some logical restrictions make sense, but not panic-induced banning or other such nonsense.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | kamylienne (80)
11/19/2005 | While it certainly makes sense to impose limits on purchasing guns (like on age), gun control won't solve the biggest problem with gun-related violence: most of the crimes that are committed with guns are with guns that were obtained illegally. Cracking down on illegal firearms will make a much bigger dent in gun violence than having a waiting period before obtaining one.
Overall, when governments before forbade its citizens to arm themselves, it usually did not end very well at all; it was a very definitive step in stripping away rights from the people by making it impossible to defend themselves from an opressive government.
Personally, I'm not a big fan of guns (well, not so much the guns as much as the guy who'd be pointing it at me), but I would be terribly alarmed if the government tries to take them away from everyone.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | EschewObfuscation (71)
11/18/2005 |  I respect Bird808's viewpoint. My problem with gun control is twofold. First, gun control laws decrease the number of guns owned by responsible, legal gun owners. That is wrong. It's like addressing the problem of too many uninsured vehicle operators by raising the premiums on everyone's auto insurance. Secondly, most present day "gun control" laws do not address the problem of illegally obtained and possessed guns being used in criminal activity.
Isn't that the real problem with too many guns? Too many unregistered guns in the hands of potential criminals? But we make LEGAL gun owners jump through hoops to get licensed, etc. etc. The gun control zealots, in their haste to advance their viewpoint, like to characterize ANYONE who owns or wants to own a gun, as irresponsible, brain-dead and likely to take it upon themselves to shoot up the neighborhood at the drop of a hat. What did they do wrong?
Regarding the tragedy at Dunblane, wouldn't it be fair to evaluate the "gun control" laws, which tend to be quite oppressive, to determine whether ANY such law could prevent such a tragedy? Instead, we hear, "that does it, we've got to get rid of ALL these guns. " What sense (as if you could) does that make?
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Bird808 (55)
11/17/2005 | In the UK they definitely need to tighten up their gun laws as the Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997 is not enough. I've seen too many lives ruined by these weapons going into the wrong hands, due to Blair having a very relaxed attitude and turning almost a blind eye to the whole situation. On March 13th 1996 in Dunblane, Thomas Hamilton walked into a primary school and fired 105 rounds killing sixteen 4-6 year olds and their teacher. This was just the beginning as now nine years later the UK has degressed concerning gun crime rather than progressed.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | numbah16tdhaha (156)
11/16/2005 | I can and should have a gun. Maybe even a few guns.
(6 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-9 OF 9 | View All |
