No Guns For The Mindless Masses!
 

I know this is old. But I didn't hear about it so I thought I would post it again because it is such a contridiction. Dianne Feinstein believes that only the privileged should be legally permitted to protect themselves. You can not have or carry a gun but she can!

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...&client=safari

Feirnswine is just like any other Neo Nazi wannabe!, Guns for them, not for the people they with to oppress and control!

US gun Nazis took most of Australia's arms without resistance(the typical Aussie way :rolleyes: ) but they will have to take my guns from my cold dead hands!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...hotwelcome.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...s_givelead.jpg

And Yes, I do use Feirnswine / Brady targets at the range and I highly recommend them!

Really! tell us how you really feel :rofl: It was ment as a point to find humor in. Oh well

I don't like to pussyfoot!

Gun control has cost many lives in Australia and I take it very seriously!

Gun control only prevents the law abiding citizens from owning guns...

If someone decides to rob my house I have my trusty Rossi snubnose to change thier mind

What if the penalties for carrying an illegal gun were made very harsh?

Do you believe that harsh penalties result in lower crime?

If so, then shouldn't harsh penalties for carrying illegal guns result in much fewer criminals carrying guns?

(I'd love to see the answer to this one. This is one of those hypocritical arguments where conservatives would love to have their cake and eat it too. They will argue that harsher penalties will lower crime, but when it comes to gun control, suddenly they change their tune and admit that criminals will still carry guns and that the harsh laws will only affect law abiding citizens)

Gun control proposals by politicians are not about guns, they are about control. Throughout history, politicians routinely crave more and more power. If you have an armed citizenry, you cannot control them.

:iagree:

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was not so that people can defend themselves against criminals. It was so that people can defend themselves against an abusive government, and overthrow that government if need be.

The problem is that times have changed, and today having guns would not be enough to resist the government's vast military. When the founding fathers were around, it would have been.

To be in line with the original purpose of the 2nd amendment, you would have to allow common citizens to own all kinds of weapons.

Well I have never said that harsher penalites will charistically decrease crime...it will in given instances no doubt (Singapore has a very low pickpocket, shoplifting rate because if you do it they cut off your hand) but in violent crimes no it requires a specific type of person to WANT to activly injure another human being...blackmarket guns are VERY easy to come by and many laws restricting ownership of firearms by people with prior felony convictions are not very activly enforced thus creating another issue...Calling me a conservative is a little insulting...but I guess that is what I get for wanting lower taxes...so do you support stronger penalties for illegal weapons while simultainously trying to remove guns from the law abiding public's hands? What side of the fence do you sit on and judge others on for this particular issue?

I apologize for directing that post specifically at you. It was more meant to target conservatives in general. It sounds like perhaps you are more of a libertarian. But I have seen you post on foreign policy issues, and there you seem anything but a libertarian. So I figured you more for a republican conservative. I could be wrong though.

As for my personal opinion on this matter, I think that the only way to get guns of the street is to stop manufacturing them, and have a policy to gather up what guns there are and destroy them. This issue is much like the war on drugs. As long as the drugs are around, people are going to buy them. Prosecuting the street dealers or individuals who are caught with them is not going to have any affect on the problem.

So no, I am not for your typical gun control laws. But I do think it is remarkable how people in many parts of the world do not even have to lock their doors when they leave home, let alone worry about being the victim of a gun crime. I think violence is not a result of guns, but a result of poor social and economic conditions, and having a government that says "do as I say, not as I do".

Just a side note, but if you look at rates of violent crimes in the US (or in any country for that matter), you will find that following a war, violent crime rates always sharply increase for a few years.