Connecting Singles^® Forums100% Free Online Dating

I posted this on a similar thread somewhere in the forums but didnt get much attention and i would really like to get some oppinions on this, especially from Americans:

I used to live in a country (not importand which one) that everyone had a right to OWN guns but it was very strictly prohibited to BEAR arms (as in carrying them around with you, in your car etc).

Trust me, i felt perfectly safe in my house with a shotgun locked in the high cupboard of my bedroom and a G3A3 7.62mm automatic army assault riffle oiled and waiting in the other shelf. So did everybody else there.

But if i even tried to carry any of them anywhere, it was immediate jail time.

Footnote: Both of the guns mentioned are more than 2 feet long (ok, they can be dissmantled but it's not the point). Ownership of small handguns, that could be easily be carried around unnoticed, was also strictly prohibited.

Just a thought for all my american friends.

what? no takers on this one? i see gun related threads all the time in the forums, what do you think of this as a model?

Manolito!
It never has worked anywhere!
Somtimes it also was used to disarm a Minority,the Armenians and a few others come to mind.

what do you mean Don? I dont get it.

What i am talking here is the right to OWN guns. BIG ones at that.

The reason i bring this up, is because every time there is a talk about gun control arguments like protection of property / family come in, or the constitutional obligation of the people being able to defend themselves from a falted government.

With the above example, both of these things are guaranteed, but in a way that puts guns out of the streets for the most part.

Hay I'm all for having a gun, but trying telling that to the bleeding hearts.

I don't have a problem with people owning or carrying handguns as long as they are owned and carried legally. I keep mine handy around the house but rarely have carried them outside unless I was going to the range.

I don't thing they should be banned because they are easier to conceal.

i do not see why someone needs to own an Uzi, or a magnum to defend himself.

There are other ways to go about it: If the minimum length of the gun you can own is 2 feet, it is NOT easy to conceil it and carry it around.
IF at the same time it is a MAJOR ofence for carrying any type of gun outside your own house and there is implementation of this,

it might becaume just a bit more difficult for certain crimes to happen.

And i am not refering to the criminals, because they will all have guns. I am talking about people shooting other people, the kind of thing that takes place all to often over there.

I am talking about GUNCONTROL,not the Right to Own and Bear Arms.
The Issue of Bearing Arms has Liiitle bit Leeway for Discussion,whereas The Right to Own them is not for sale by any slicktalking Politician.
The Right to Own and Bear Arms stems from the Right to Selfdefense,which one only delegates to the State,but not relinqishing it.
For the State to deny me the Means to defend my Own,is also denying me the Right to Life.
Rights belong to the Individual,they are NOT bestowd on the Citizens by their Government.
Government is only the Custodian of those Rights,not the Giver.

There is one problem with the idea that if you control the legal size of a gun to 2 feet for example, is that the people who abide by those laws arent the ones who break them during acts of crime. Changing the legal status of a pistol, only affects the law abiding citizens. Giving the criminals an advantage. If you had to find your shotgun and load it at two in the morning verses a pistol in your nightstand what kind of difference would that make in protecting your family?

By the way I choose not to own a firearm.

Manolito,

I understand what you're saying, I really do but what you may be missing is that those people you refer to as shooting other people are criminals.

I honestly can't remember the last time I heard about an average guy or gal pulling out a hand gun in anger and killing someone with the exception of the ocassional murder-suicide scenario. I'm sure it happens but not often.

What does happen very often is an armed criminal accidently or on purpose kills someone during a robbery, home intrusion, etc... Then there's gang bangers and drug dealers shooting each other which we always hear about.

You acknowledge that all criminals will all have guns. Does it make sense to take away the rights of law abiding citizens to maintain an equal footing? To me it doesn't and I don't believe the size or length of the gun would matter a whole lot.

(Isn't that just like a man to say size doesn't matter)

Seriously, banning handguns for those who already obey the law will result in only criminals having them. There's also the issue of the right to bear arms which has been discussed here several times.

This is going to be a story, I'm afraid....

My dad had a rifle (that he loved very much).
He was living with my sister in a suburb of Sydney.
She hated the rifle and would beg him to get rid of it or at least lock it up.
He ignored her 'cause you don't lock up something you love, right?
He was also fond of keeping it loaded.
He went on holiday somewhere.
She came back from work one night to find the doors of the house open.
Luckily she heard voices and had the chance to get outta there quietly.
They ended up finding and stealing the rifle AND the bullets....

My point is...
Had these guys suddenly met my sister that night, my father had armed them with a weapon to shoot her / kill her with.....

Sorry, but imo,
no such thing as safe as houses,
no such thing as safe guns.....

But then I'm a girl.... What do I know.....

i need to step out for a while, but i will be back with this, i promise. i got a few more things to comment

Well, just the same as the diligence the police use to control illegal drugs, they should apply this dilligence to unlicenced and illegal guns. Let the legal and responsible ownership of firearms be a non-issue, and the criminal element must know what they going to face. Surely this would assist in law and order?

The use of assegais, baseball bats, karate, etc is no defence against an armed intruder.

Breezee`s argument is valid .....but.....a gun should be kept in a good quality safe, no?

Yes.

I just don't like them.....

For personal reasons, I neither carry, nor own any firearms. However, I would be upset if the government decided to remove my right to.

In the past, I carried a small handgun in my car with me without incident. If I was ever pulled over for a traffic violation or something, I simply kept my hands on the steering wheel. When the officer approached I would say, "I have a gun, it is on my right between the seats in plain sight." Then I just follow thier instructions. They do what they have to do for their safety, then I go about my business.

Not a very good place in an Emergency.

Many many more people die on our roads each year then die by the gun, funny how no one really seems to care much about that, and most are completely preventable. There is an inherant risk to living, there is always a chance something or someone is going to kill us.

There's a good chance that Hillary may ban roads if elected