Welcome to Gaia! ::

I agree with that, but we do still have the right to bear arms, unless you wanna start taking that away, why not take away freedom of speech, or religion, or even the right to vote, it's too, shall I say it, communist to have the gov't able to take away our rights!

There's an old saying I'm reminded of: "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws'll have 'em."

As for assault weapons, well, that's a tough call. Making them illegal won't take them out of the hands of criminals, just make it less convenient. By keeping them legal, we still have the gun registry to look up who owns them. I will agree that the average citizen has no practical use for an AK-47 or an M-14, but making them illegal won't stop the crimes. Most people forget that our right to bear arms is for self protection. To keep the central government from disarming its citizens and becoming some sort of tyrannical monstrosity.

I think that castle law is a great law. Some of the places I've lived in would've benefited from such a law. I've heard stories of people being sued or arrested for shooting someone in their house because they weren't armed. You have to actually wait for them to take a shot at you before you can protect yourself.

I love AK-47's i use em for target practice at the club. paper targets that is. i don't shoot anything that breathes. at least not unless i'm in danger or someone else is. where i live it's considered self defence if you shoot someone in your home but they must fall in the house, beyond the threshhold. if they fall back, drag em in! while i'd still get some prison or jail time, i wouldn't be considered a murderer. Why should i have to wait for them to shoot at me? by that time i'd be dead! i'll wait for them to pull out a gun and then i'll shoot. if they pull out something else that they intend to use as a weapon i still use one of my guns. if they're unarmed i take em down bare handed. any of those ways, they aren't leaving my house unless they're in handcuffs. 3nodding

I don't believe that there should have ever been a ban on assult weapons. Any limitations on what (guns) we can own is a lessoning of our 2nd ammendment rights. It is the fact that citizens may choose to legally own guns, that allows those who choose not to to feel just as safe as those who choose toown them.

I'll do you one better, Pasithea. Schools are legislated into "no gun" zones. Well, that's nice until some nutjob comes and kills everybody. Obviously the "no gun" zone didn't stop him.

So who is that really helping? I think it actually makes things worse. It invites this: "Oh. A bunch of innocent people for me to shoot, and they won't be able to defend themselves!"

No. Most importantly, guns are essential in case we need to overthrow the government again(and we will have to when they take away our life, liberty and property. It is our duty as human beings). How else can we defeat a tyrannical standing army?

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or facetious or what. Haha! But, I can assure you that I am serious. When a nation has a standing army, it becomes a very threat to liberty. Always.

Now the funny thing about soldiers, it is almost impossible for them to disobey orders.

Or another scenario; they have a personal stake. They benefit from the corrupt regime.

Or; maybe they've been brainwashed by nonsense.

Just a few hypotheticals.

I personally think this is just as stupid concept as trying to regulate illegal drugs. It doesn't matter what regulations you put on them, if people want them, they can still get them. This applies to guns too.