Why do so many people assume gun control means that their guns will be taken away?

Question

I believe that people have a right to own firearms if they want to. I DON'T think that they have a right to own fully automatic weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds per second. What possible reason could a civilian have to own one that isn't criminal? What do you think?

Answer 1

I think on this issue there can be no debate, there will be no change on the gun rules, unless you want some serious civil strife in America

Answer 2

To start with, a fully automatic firearm is difficult to obtain legally and is expensive. There are relatively few of them when compared to everything else. In terms of criminal acts, they are seldom used despite what you see on TV.



The so called assault weapon ban does not address these types of guns at all, it addresses semi- automatic rifles, which require you to pull the trigger for each shot fired. That is what has people upset. If they can ban semi- auto rifles, then semi- auto shotguns and pistols won't be far behind. I doubt that there are many gun owners who are pushing to have the rules for full automatic firearms relaxed, but there are a lot of us who do not want to see additional gun control laws.



There are over 20,000 gun control laws on the books in the US. Adding more will not reduce crime. No matter what you ban, if the criminals want it they will get it, just like drugs and even other humans that smuggled into the country.



As for what a civilian would want a fully automatic machine gun for, well the 2nd Amendment does say that the reason we are armed is for the security of a free country. The word militia is prominent and that means fighting in battle. Hopefully that will never happen, either against foriegn invaders or tyrannical government, but if it ever did, as it has in many other countries then a fully auto weapon is exactly what the 2nd Amendment refers to.



You state;

"The 2nd amendment is important, I know. It was also written at a time when people couldn't even imagine a gun that could fire more than one bullet without having to reload in between shots."



True, but then they couldn't imagien electronic media like we are using either. Mechinism where biased reporting can form US and even world opinion. But would like us to use that excuse to have all news outlet go back to hand run printing presses and criers in the street?

Answer 3

Full auto weapons are not the problem. Most crimes with firearms are pistols but pistols are not the problem either. Criminals and illegal acts are the problem. There are 20,000+ gun laws on the books right now. If that is true why does Chicago have such violence? And they have a handgun ban.



Instead of banning the guns why do we not ban the criminals.



"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms ... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity ... will respect the less important and arbitrary ones ... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." — Thomas Jefferson



http://www.youtube.com/user/DOUGandFRIENDS



Look up on the FBI's website...the crime rate went down before the Clinton gun ban was made law. It was going down....

Answer 4

I think it isn't the government's business what our hobbies are and if people like shooting powerful weapons at a range, that is their business. Also, in LA where I live, I bought my first ever gun (a .357) after Katrina, to protect my family. However, hearing what really happened with the gangs and THEIR automatic weapons after Katrina I can see that if the 'big one' ever hits here, only the gangs will have realistic arms.



Letting only the bad guys have the powerful weapons is a truly bad idea. And the bad guys obviously don't care what the 'gun control' laws say.

Answer 5

Fully automatic weapons have been illegal to own since the 1930's. Very few people, if any, are debating that prohibition.



That being said, I'm against ANY further usurpation of Second Amendment rights, including registration, waiting periods, and feel good bans on cosmetic grounds (the so-called "assault weapons ban"). Last time I checked, there were no asterisks affixed tot he Second Amendment.



EDIT: The ban which lapsed banned certain features which were strictly cosmetic in scope. Do you truly wish to ban weapons based on the fact that they LOOK scary? Good grief, at least know what it is you want to ban and the reason you wish to do so.

Answer 6

Maybe because of things like this:



Date: Wednesday, January 14, 2009, 4:07 PM



Are you ready for the House Bill titled 'HR 45, Blair Holt Liscensing and Record Act of 2009'. It will make it illegal to own a firearm unless it is registered with the database in Washington D.C. As a gun owner you will have to be finger printed, you will be required to provide your DL#, SS#, you must maintain a valid address at all times, submit to mental amd physical health records being put on file, you will also be required to file any address changes and you any ownership changes even if private sale. Each update will cost $25 and if you fail to comply you will lose your right to own firearms. This bill and its language mirror almost completely one defeated last year in the House of Representatives by soon to be Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. We the citizenry be as lucky this time?



Pass this on to everyone who believes in strict Constitutionalism and remember that laws only apply to those who obey them. Criminals by definition and nature do not abide by laws. New laws and restrictions only apply to the law abiding citizen and are not written with the criminal in mind. With guns, it is not about having laws on the books to prosecute individuals, it is about taking guns away from the people so that no one has them in the first place. One last item to note, when assuming power and creating a facist state, Hitler was a proponent of strong gun laws because a disarmed populace was much easier to control than an armed one. The kings of old also outlawed weapons of any kind in any region that they conquered to quell the ability of the citizens to uprise against them.



The Founding Fathers of this nation understood all of the above and because of this they included the second amendment in the constitution. In fact, they knew that at some point in every society's life span that the need for the population to arise came about. To this end they made they right to keep and bear arms against a tyrannical state an absolute right that could not be revoked. They did this because the first thing tyrants and despots do is to remove a populations right to defend themselves. When this is done the tyrants have no problem with the destruction of society as we know it.



And you really wonder why people think their guns will be taken away?

Answer 7

We assume that because the people who push "gun control" have clearly stated that is their intention. Your remarks about fully automatic weapons and hundreds of rounds per second illustrate that you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Answer 8

The gun laws are in effect you know nothing American people do not legally own Automatic weapons and Haven't since I was around early 1960s only Federal fire arms dealers with a specially licence. Some Wealthy Gun Colletors have them but they have to have Federal permit and enough money to get a permit. I know lots of gun owners and have only seen one fully automatic weapon in my life and it was owned illegally.

Why do you ask QUESTIONS with bad Facts?

Answer 9

One of the reasons for the 2nd amendment was for citizens to have the ability to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. When the government gets rid of all of their automatic weapons, then you may have a point.

Answer 10

It shows a step of taking away of fire arms. In Israel, their citizens are allow to carry an automatic.



It is self defense when living in a gang infested area.



The police can't be everywhere. My definition of gun control is to hit the target with one shot.

Answer 11

" I DON'T think that they have a right to own fully automatic weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds per second."



Why not?



"What possible reason could a civilian have to own one that isn't criminal?""



Because we can perhaps? its or free and constitutionally protected right to do so, and makes for a well armed militia per the second ammendment, if it ever were to be needed. 2nd ammendment. You should read it.



Consider also, it snowballs. right now the anti-gun advocates are crying about semis. not full



some people collect them? whene did yu ever see a criminal break in using a fully auto?

Answer 12

Gun control will never be enacted in a manner that takes someones personal property ( guns).

They will just severely restrict ammunition and reloading supplies... Its already being done and bills are circulating to make it even more restrictive.

Answer 13

Law abiding people don't have autos unless they have a class III. Most who do are collectors or people who like to shoot. They don't carry them around on the street looking to commit a crime.



Enforce the laws don't control.

Answer 14

via fact the Obama bunch are actively getting the U. S. on board the UN Small arms Treaty, which claims to be to wrestle unlawful arms trafficking, collectively as in certainty, it truly is a flow in direction of the repeal of the 2nd exchange and the confiscation of all legal weapons, leaving in easy terms the criminal and the government armed, via fact neither group obeys the guidelines that exist, why might they obey a clean one? not all Democrats prefer to strip the citizenry of their legal weapons, yet maximum gun grabbers only take place to be Democrats to boot to being liberal do-gooders who discern they concern weapons, so no citizen must be allowed to have them. stay reliable, stay secure.

Answer 15

My automatic holds just enough rounds to take care of a gang doing a home invasion. If I use it in a responsible manner, what business is it of the government if I have it?

Answer 16

Countries without gun bans--the people are called citizens

Countries with gun bans--the people are called subjects



Big difference.

Answer 17

there are ways to eventually eliminate guns. the tactic i feel the left will use will be a huge tax on ammunition. that will succeed like prohibition! if they attempt to physically take the guns the S##T will hit the fan.

Answer 18

There are many people who believe that their precious guns will be confiscated by the government if they don't keep a constant vigil. There seems to always be some secret plot going on to strip Americans of their arms. Oddly, most gun owners still have their guns, and gun sales have not slipped.

Answer 19

When the looters come I want to be prepared to defend myself, my family and my property. There will be so many looters that a simple hand gun will be insufficient.

Answer 20

actually, it is hard to get fully autos.. the ones you see on tv are SEMI autos.... many of the them are watered down aks and ar15s.



PS the anti gun lobby works by chipping away at our gun rights... today fully auto's, tom. semi autos, tom tom handguns, tom tom tom any rifle, tom tom tom tom shotguns, tom tom tom tom tom bb guns, tom tom tom tom tom tom rubberband guns tom tom tom tom tom tom tom tom tom waterguns ..........

Answer 21

yes