Quantcast

Do you think the government should control firearms ?

Woman of many faces~ijm 2013/01/12 17:20:58
Related Topics: Firearms, Government, Firearm
Sound off...
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • moknowsky 2013/02/23 01:16:17
    No, and this is why!
    moknowsky
    +1
    This rogue regime can't even control itself!
  • The Pale Man 2013/01/25 01:02:32
    Sound off...
    The Pale Man
    +1
    Well Hitler would say yes, so I'm pretty sure the right answer is no.
  • Doc. J 2013/01/19 04:03:59
    Sound off...
    Doc. J
    +1
    Guns are already federally regulated.
  • MichaelDillon 2013/01/19 03:56:49
    Sound off...
    MichaelDillon
    +1
    This is basackwards, firearms are for keeping the government from getting out of control.
    Report to the remedial reading class. reading the constitution
  • Stop Hillary 2016 2013/01/18 21:31:45
    No, and this is why!
    Stop Hillary 2016
    Obama 'Fast and Furious' Scandal Hits Libya

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/201...

    Published: December 06, 2012

    WASHINGTON - The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

    No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

    But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

    The experience in Libya has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries.

    The Obama administration did not initially raise objections when Qatar began shippin...

    Obama 'Fast and Furious' Scandal Hits Libya

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/201...

    Published: December 06, 2012

    WASHINGTON - The Obama administration secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.

    No evidence has emerged linking the weapons provided by the Qataris during the uprising against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi to the attack that killed four Americans at the United States diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in September.

    But in the months before, the Obama administration clearly was worried about the consequences of its hidden hand in helping arm Libyan militants, concerns that have not previously been reported. The weapons and money from Qatar strengthened militant groups in Libya, allowing them to become a destabilizing force since the fall of the Qaddafi government.

    The experience in Libya has taken on new urgency as the administration considers whether to play a direct role in arming rebels in Syria, where weapons are flowing in from Qatar and other countries.

    The Obama administration did not initially raise objections when Qatar began shipping arms to opposition groups in Syria, even if it did not offer encouragement, according to current and former administration officials. But they said the United States has growing concerns that, just as in Libya, the Qataris are equipping some of the wrong militants.

    The United States, which had only small numbers of C.I.A. officers in Libya during the tumult of the rebellion, provided little oversight of the arms shipments. Within weeks of endorsing Qatar's plan to send weapons there in spring 2011, the White House began receiving reports that they were going to Islamic militant groups. They were "more antidemocratic, more hard-line, closer to an extreme version of Islam" than the main rebel alliance in Libya, said a former Defense Department official.
    (more)
  • Centrist_Bill 2013/01/18 20:23:17
    No, and this is why!
    Centrist_Bill
    We have the 2nd amendment. It makes it pretty clear who can own firearms.
  • Patric 2013/01/18 17:32:19
    No, and this is why!
    Patric
    they should not ,
    they can not .

    damn, they have a war on drugs for 40 years , and have lost each and every year,
    and this is dopers and crack whores , and addicts they are losing the war to..

    what makes you think they are going to win control of firearms ?

    I am surprised congress can control their bladders, let alone firearms...
  • Amasaman 2013/01/18 17:16:44
    No, and this is why!
    Amasaman
    +1
    What part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?
  • mrdog 2013/01/18 16:58:48
    No, and this is why!
    mrdog
    +1
    The Second...bark
  • AG 2013/01/18 16:26:53
    No, and this is why!
    AG
    +1
    2nd Amendment is why!
  • BackWoodsMike 2013/01/18 15:43:55
    No, and this is why!
    BackWoodsMike
    Here is a petition that every right minded American should sign.

    - - - - - - -
    Petition To
    The United States Congress
    The President of the United States
    The United States Supreme Court


    Whereas, the Bill of Rights added further declaratory and restrictive clauses to the U.S. Constitution in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers; and

    Whereas, those further declaratory and restrictive clauses relate directly to the fundamental rights of individuals, including the sweeping declaratory Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which guarantee that powers not delegated by the people to the United States in the Constitution and those powers not granted to the separate states were reserved to the people; and

    Whereas, history demonstrates convincingly that the first act of tyrannical governments in expanding their powers beyond those granted to them is to disarm or short arm individuals so as to render them defenseless against the state’s heavily armed police and soldiery; and

    Whereas, the authors of the first ten amendments included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights because they understood this lesson of history and consequently believed as a matter of fact that a well-armed citizenry is both a necessary condition of liberty and the only effective deterrent against...













    Here is a petition that every right minded American should sign.

    - - - - - - -
    Petition To
    The United States Congress
    The President of the United States
    The United States Supreme Court


    Whereas, the Bill of Rights added further declaratory and restrictive clauses to the U.S. Constitution in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers; and

    Whereas, those further declaratory and restrictive clauses relate directly to the fundamental rights of individuals, including the sweeping declaratory Ninth and Tenth Amendments, which guarantee that powers not delegated by the people to the United States in the Constitution and those powers not granted to the separate states were reserved to the people; and

    Whereas, history demonstrates convincingly that the first act of tyrannical governments in expanding their powers beyond those granted to them is to disarm or short arm individuals so as to render them defenseless against the state’s heavily armed police and soldiery; and

    Whereas, the authors of the first ten amendments included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights because they understood this lesson of history and consequently believed as a matter of fact that a well-armed citizenry is both a necessary condition of liberty and the only effective deterrent against tyranny; and

    Whereas, there is a plethora of evidence confirming these facts in the writings and statements of the Founders—including the author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, and the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, as well as in numerous other documents and writings contemporary of the Founding of the United States; and

    Whereas, these writings and statements also demonstrate conclusively that the authors of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed as a matter of philosophy that every human being possesses an inalienable, fundamental, natural right, which pre-dates the Second Amendment, to own and bear arms and, if necessary, to use those arms in self defense, including self defense against tyrannical government agents, police forces and armies that would over step their proper bounds; and

    Whereas, George Mason, the Father of the Bill of Rights, summed it up best when he said, “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them;” and

    Whereas, the Second Amendment was designed specifically to prevent the people’s enslavement by guaranteeing that individuals not only would retain the right and means to defend themselves against private outlaws who would do them harm but also to provide individuals an effective deterrent against and a means to defend themselves against tyrannical and oppressive governments and their agents acting improperly under the color of law; and

    Whereas, the Second Amendment was and remains an unambiguous and unrestricted, sweeping guarantee of individuals’ right to own and bear arms and use them in their own self defense; now

    Therefore, We the Undersigned petition the United States Government to cease and desist all efforts to disarm or short-arm the American people by limiting and disparaging the Second Amendment or rendering it a dead letter through federal legislation, interpretation and regulation.

    http://gunappreciationday.com...
    (more)
  • Reggie☮ 2013/01/18 15:39:14
    No, and this is why!
    Reggie☮
    +4
    We don't need the government to control everything, look at the track record.
  • Steve 2013/01/18 15:35:00
    No, and this is why!
    Steve
    +5
    Government takes guns away from the people, freedoms go with them, tyranny follows, millions of citizens are enslaved and/or killed.
  • Kronan_1 2013/01/18 13:56:07
    No, and this is why!
    Kronan_1
    +3
    What does the Gov have control of now that works? What haven't they fubar'd?
  • Car1u5~PWCM~JLA 2013/01/14 22:38:19
    No, and this is why!
    Car1u5~PWCM~JLA
    +4
    no more than they already do. criminals donot care about laws that is why they are criminals plus if they know noone has firearms that will just make them that much more apt to break into your house or whatever.
  • Todd Parsons 2013/01/14 19:28:25
    No, and this is why!
    Todd Parsons
    +3
    Because then they can control their people...US
  • JoLost 2013/01/14 17:47:29
    Sound off...
    JoLost
    +2
    Regulated through due process on an individual basis, yes.

    "Control", that would imply sole propriety and not serve the interest of the common good. (See Saddam Hussein)

    2000 men can rule a nation of millions through dictatorship much easier than one man.

    I would support a total ban of certain type of weapons, including assault rifles only if its a complete and total ban. That would include weapons used in the military for the common defense of the nation and in law enforcement. Then I would agree they no longer meet constitutional protections because they no longer would be common weapons used in the military for defense. (US vs Miller 1939) and would serve no "just" purpose for possessing,

    A nuclear weapon is not a weapon of defense, its a weapon of offense and the "threat" of implementing it is a only secondary defense. A nuclear counter strike would only be retaliation in offense.

    An assault rifle is also initially a weapon of offense but also used in the immediate defense of the offense, so it would stand as a weapon of common defense and protected under the provisions of the second amendment as established in SCOTUS findings of US vs Miller 1939 ruling.

    So no. I dont support the idea that "government should control firearms".
  • DuncanONeil 2013/01/14 17:24:29
    Sound off...
    DuncanONeil
    +1
    They already do!

    Why then do they need to make more rules??
  • Swordfish 2013/01/13 17:38:36
    Sound off...
    Swordfish
    How did you do this with the picture??

    The government should only ban guns with high-capacity magazines, for the sole purpose of making gun nuts quit their incessant babbling because it annoys the hell out of me.
  • DuncanO... Swordfish 2013/01/14 17:26:16
    DuncanONeil
    +3
    Define "high capacity magazines" & why they should be banned?
  • Sherry 2013/01/13 17:38:22
    No, and this is why!
    Sherry
    Maybe I should have said yes. Put one of those with the gun barrell pointed backwards in their hand, adjust that arm in front of their face, show 'em where to place the trigger finger, tell them they need to learn gun control in case they ever have to defend themselves from the enemy.
  • Jackie ... Sherry 2013/01/13 19:33:56
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +2
    So, and I want to understand, your solution is to force anyone with a fire arm to kill themselves for your personal gratification.
  • Patric Jackie ... 2013/01/18 17:26:23
    Patric
    +1
    sheerry post is a little confusing ...
  • rknothead 2013/01/13 17:35:57
    No, and this is why!
    rknothead
    +4
    They can't control themselves, let alone a firearm.
  • rand 2013/01/13 17:34:43
    Yes, and here's why.
    rand
    +1
    Because the advantages of having rapid fire, large capacity weapons outside of firing ranges are outweighed by the unnecessary killing of innocents. I own a handgun and have no (zero, zilch, nada) fear that the government wants it and I support reasoned 2nd Amendment rights, but I'm also a compassionate, pragmatic, utilitarian Goldwater Republican.
  • Todd Pa... rand 2013/01/14 19:29:24
    Todd Parsons
    +1
    The government has these weapons. The 2nd amendment was to protect citizens from a tyrannical government.
  • rand Todd Pa... 2013/01/15 15:10:54
    rand
    "The 2nd amendment was to protect citizens from a tyrannical government." O.K. Please offer the aspect of the Constitution that says this. Should citizens not then have RPGs and nuclear weapons?
  • Todd Pa... rand 2013/01/15 16:58:03
    Todd Parsons
    If you refer to yours I'll refer to mine
  • rand Todd Pa... 2013/01/15 21:11:43
    rand
    ?!
  • Todd Pa... rand 2013/01/16 14:14:33
    Todd Parsons
    +1
    The right to bear arms shall not be INFRINGED... Limitations are infringements!

    Nulear arms would not fall into the catagory as you can't normally carry them and they are also health hazzards.... an RPG however...technically yes
  • rand Todd Pa... 2013/01/16 17:10:11
    rand
    In theory then suitcase neutron bombs would then be OK since they don't leave radioactive debris and can be carried? Do you really want citizens owning RPGs? Are machine guns then OK? Limits will be and are set whether or not we agree with them. It's the nature of governance.

    "Arms" referred to the "arms" of which the founding fathers knew. Interpretation of the word now lies with the Supreme Court, like it or not.

    We don't share the same ideology, though I was heavily influenced by Goldwater's Libertarian streak and believe very much in limited government. I am a utilitarian pragmatist Republican from the era when the GOP was considered "the party of reason". I'm the only person I know who's read both volumes of Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies" AND I do not fear my duly elected government ...even when I didn't vote for the man who won.
  • rand Todd Pa... 2013/01/19 17:20:39
    rand
    So citizens having RPGs and machine guns is OK? Funny Scalia supported Reagan's '84 ban. The Supreme Court may consider limits based on the nature of "arms" then and now. It's the nature of our constitution to be able to handle changing conditions.
  • Todd Pa... rand 2013/01/22 14:49:23
    Todd Parsons
    OK...so by your thoughts we should go back to knives and arrows
  • rand Todd Pa... 2013/01/22 16:42:21
    rand
    I have a handgun and absolutely no fear that anyone is coming to take it from me, but then I've never listened to the NRA fear-mongering.
  • Todd Pa... rand 2013/01/22 16:44:27
    Todd Parsons
    They are not taking your gun....just your ability to use it... NY just passed a law that prohibits weapons that have more than 7 rounds. 90% of semi automatic handguns have a 8-10 shot magazine. So those guns are now legally useless.
  • rand Todd Pa... 2013/01/22 16:46:40
    rand
    And conservatives like O'Reilly (and me) applaud the freedom of different localities to choose their own levels of control. Those in NY who don't like it can elect different officials or move, but it's no surprise that urban needs differ from rural ones.
  • Todd Pa... rand 2013/01/22 16:48:34
    Todd Parsons
    Problem in NY is...more people on welfare than are working...the ones working are union.... The poor conservatives are in the minority there. SO in reality, their vote DOESN'T count
  • rand Todd Pa... 2013/01/22 16:51:25
    rand
    The same can be said of many liberal thinkers in gerrymandered Republican districts. It's clearly an imperfect system.
  • Todd Pa... rand 2013/01/22 18:56:18
    Todd Parsons
    The bottom line is laws only keep law abiding citizens in check... Criminals don't care. and there is a black market out there where people can get anything. Murder is illegal. Doesn't stop criminals. Canada is a passive society, YET if you had purchased a FULLY AUTOMATIC Assault weapon there pre 1978. they are legal to own.

    WHY , in this country have to started a war on the law abiding citizen and let the criminal element run the streets?

    Guns are a tool... Like a knife, Like the bow and arrow. But besides hunting, it is a recreational sport. The Biathlon is an olypmic sport. Skiing and shooting. There are TONS of competitive shooting matches in this country. collectors (some firearms have beautiful artwork) Why now must we punish those people because of a tiny fraction of idiots?

    99.9% of legal gun owners have no problem wit the reasonable laws. such as background checks and closing the gun show loops holes. As well as cracking down and identifying the mentally ill people.

    What we do have issue with is someone saying we can't own certain types of guns because they are scary. IE Military STYLE weapons... Many of these features are simply cosmetic, yet they deem a weapon as banned.

    We also have an issue with limiting rounds... Do you know how stupid an AK-47 would look...



    The bottom line is laws only keep law abiding citizens in check... Criminals don't care. and there is a black market out there where people can get anything. Murder is illegal. Doesn't stop criminals. Canada is a passive society, YET if you had purchased a FULLY AUTOMATIC Assault weapon there pre 1978. they are legal to own.

    WHY , in this country have to started a war on the law abiding citizen and let the criminal element run the streets?

    Guns are a tool... Like a knife, Like the bow and arrow. But besides hunting, it is a recreational sport. The Biathlon is an olypmic sport. Skiing and shooting. There are TONS of competitive shooting matches in this country. collectors (some firearms have beautiful artwork) Why now must we punish those people because of a tiny fraction of idiots?

    99.9% of legal gun owners have no problem wit the reasonable laws. such as background checks and closing the gun show loops holes. As well as cracking down and identifying the mentally ill people.

    What we do have issue with is someone saying we can't own certain types of guns because they are scary. IE Military STYLE weapons... Many of these features are simply cosmetic, yet they deem a weapon as banned.

    We also have an issue with limiting rounds... Do you know how stupid an AK-47 would look with a 10 round magazine?

    Then we have mandatory registration... this is an issue we're pretty much split on.... Creating a database of gun owners is something many fear due to the fact we believe the 2nd amendment was to protect citizens from an oppressive government. If the government knows you have them...if ever they declared martial law, they'd take yours from you.

    So there is why the pro-gun people think as they do. I can't make it any clearer. Difference on this issue vs others though is that Both left and right actually find some common ground on this topic.
    (more)
  • rand Todd Pa... 2013/01/22 21:32:08
    rand
    You should go to work for the NRA.
    Multiple People Wounded In Texas School Shooting
    By Igor Volsky
    Jan 22, 2013

    At least three people were shot in a shooting at Lone Star College in north Houston, Texas some time before 12:30 PM. Witnesses on the scene say the shooting may have escalated after a heated argument, possibly over a bad grade. At least two victims were caught in the crossfire and suffered “multiple gun shot wounds,” ABC13 reports, and are in serious condition. They were brought into surgery at Ben Taub General Hospital. One of the victims — who was shot in the leg — is a school employee. The other, a younger student, was found on the ground unconscious, with his eyes closed.

    The college, as well as other neighboring schools, are on lock down. Lone Star College has been evacuated.

    Witnesses report hearing at least 5 gunshots and say there may be two shooters, one of whom is in police custody. The shooter may also have been injured. Another shooter ran from the library into an administrative building and may have fled the scene into a wooded area. 10 ATF agents are on the way to help search for a second gunman.

    Ben Taub General Hospital officials don’t expect to receive any more serious patients.

    Appearing on Fox News, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), who represents Lone ...

    You should go to work for the NRA.
    Multiple People Wounded In Texas School Shooting
    By Igor Volsky
    Jan 22, 2013

    At least three people were shot in a shooting at Lone Star College in north Houston, Texas some time before 12:30 PM. Witnesses on the scene say the shooting may have escalated after a heated argument, possibly over a bad grade. At least two victims were caught in the crossfire and suffered “multiple gun shot wounds,” ABC13 reports, and are in serious condition. They were brought into surgery at Ben Taub General Hospital. One of the victims — who was shot in the leg — is a school employee. The other, a younger student, was found on the ground unconscious, with his eyes closed.

    The college, as well as other neighboring schools, are on lock down. Lone Star College has been evacuated.

    Witnesses report hearing at least 5 gunshots and say there may be two shooters, one of whom is in police custody. The shooter may also have been injured. Another shooter ran from the library into an administrative building and may have fled the scene into a wooded area. 10 ATF agents are on the way to help search for a second gunman.

    Ben Taub General Hospital officials don’t expect to receive any more serious patients.

    Appearing on Fox News, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), who represents Lone Star, says she was in a gun violence prevention meeting upon learning of shooting.

    The Lone Star website states that the college employs armed police officers and unarmed security guards.
    (more)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/08/29 20:26:41

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals