[miatchguy]

I just had to reopen this thread that was posted by Combat Wombat, it's on page two of the thread list, it's called a sickening story, it's worth reading. I agree, that's where we're headed. We have to stop it now, it's not going to happen all of a sudden, It'll happen slowely, it's already happening. Like Wombat mentioned, we still have the second amendment, but it's being ignored. The ban of 1986 completely ignored the constitution, it should have never been considered. I still believe that there should be some control, I have no problem with making things NFA arms or having to fill out BATF forms; you have to admit, if everyone in california was carrying around machine guns, sooner or later something bad would happen. But in any case, if it stopped at the ban of '86, I wouldn't have much of a problem with it, but it's not going to stop, if we keep going the way we are we'll end up just like England. People don't stress this enough, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!" I have to say if those two crooks in England would have suspected that the owner of the house they were breaking into had a gun, they wouldn't have even tried it. Criminals will always have access to illegal guns, if the people don't have guns, what will the crooks be afraid of? In Switzerland it is a federal law that every household has at least one firearm, that's why they have such a low rate of violent crimes, because the crooks know that every person down to the last little old lady will have a gun. That's the way it needs to be.
I just want to make one point here; we can't keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but we can put them in the hands of the good guys.

Please give me your feed back.

[chevrofreak]

In Switzerland it is a federal law that every household has at least one firearm, that's why they have such a low rate of violent crimes, because the crooks know that every person down to the last little old lady will have a gun.

Not quite true. In Switzerland military service is required by all elligible males. After that you recieve an assault rifle to keep. Ammunition is tightly regulated as well.

[Standing Wolf]

One of the main problems with so-called "gun control" laws is that very few Americans agree on what's so-called "reasonable." I, for example, have no problem with the idea of every law-abiding American citizen in California who can afford one owning a machine gun—or two, or three, or ten, or however many people want. Lots of people think machine guns are dangerous; then again, lots of people think my .22 caliber revolvers are equally dangerous. As far as I'm concerned, if you're a law-abiding American citizen, you should be able to keep and bear arms, openly or concealed, anywhere you choose to go, and conversely, if you commit a crime with one, you should automatically go to prison for a long, long time in addition to the sentence you'll receive for the crime itself—but there are people who'd tell you that's too much gun control.

I just want to make one point here; we can't keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys, but we can put them in the hands of the good guys.

I concur that we need to make sure more guns are in the hands of more "good guys," but believe we could make a much better effort to keep guns out of criminal hands.

[miatchguy]

It is understandable why the government is cautious about assault rifles, but there is really nothing to be afraid of. In the entire city of Chicago, of all the murders there were between 1986 and 1989, there was only a single murder with an assault weapon(heard that on full-auto.com). What I'm hoping is that we'll will get a few more smart presidents, a good congress and sooner or later the '86 ban will be repealed.

P.S. Sorry about that Switzerland thing, I didn't get it from a very reliable source.
:D

[Partisan Ranger]

The phrase 'reasonable gun control' is an example of the bastardization and distortion of language to distort meaning and, thus, intent. It's like leftists calling themselves 'progressives' (after all, who could be opposed to being 'progressive'?), abortionists calling themselves 'pro-choice' (after all, who could be opposed to 'choice'?).

Anti-gun extremist bigots immediately put themselves in the desired 'reasaonable' camp by using the phrase, and anyone who opposes them are 'extremists.' The left, with the help of a sympathetic media, has done a good job of distorting the language to aid their causes.