I'm from Europe, and no, you shouldn't have gun rights.

But don't listen to me, I'm from Europe.

I'm from Canada, and no, there's no need for gun rights.

But don't listen to me, I'm from Canada.

Why shouldn't I have gun rights? I've never done anything to deserve my right to own guns to be removed.

I believe in the right to bear arms.

Because all you do over there is shoot eachother with it?

What a well thought out and eloquently stated argument!

IMHO gun rights are o.k. Why should they not be, We have them here in the U.K (albeit not the same).

I've never shot anyone with a gun. Why should my right to own one be removed?

Yeah, and I don't plan to murder anyone, so why would there be a punishment in the law?

Kinda hard to go and make exceptions for everyone that hasn't made a foul with a gun yet.

Logic? If you don't plan on murdering anyone, you wouldn't be punished...

No, you make exceptions for the people that have violated the law, not for those who are law abiding citizens.

Because your right to own a gun is outweighed by the aggregate benefit of banning them (benefit in terms of decreased deaths).

That's the argument, essentially, it's part of the disconnect in mindset between conservative and liberals. Liberals believe that if there is a "clear" choice about it, the government should mandate it because people cannot be trusted to do the right thing by themselves. Conservatives believe as much as possible should be left up to the individual.

I lean conservative, although I tend to support stronger gun control. Stronger gun control = fewer deaths. Look at every other country in the developed world if you don't believe me.

I have a hard time justifying your right to own a gun if not letting you have one would save hundreds of people a year.

That's exactly my logic.

I support a complete ban on handguns. I enjoy game too much to advocate an absolute ban on firearms, but the only things handguns are used for is killing other people. We just don't need them.

And why don't we put the genie back in the bottle while we're at it.

That's not the point.

I am a law abiding citizen, and my rights should not be violated because other citizens choose not to follow the law.

Why should the government tell us what we can possess?

Because that's what governments are for.

Riiiight.

Anti-abortion = Conservative
Drug Laws = Conservative
Anti-Euthanasia = Conservative

Plus many more that I can't think of right now because I have a lot of Nyquil in my system.

Considering all of this, I'm pretty sure that the exact opposite of what you're saying is true.

For *exactly* the same reason that it's not legal to own a tank or a bullet proof vest.

If you want me to expand on that point, I will.

I actually have to agree. Its the liberals who dont give a s**t about what we do, but seeing as how we cant seem to behave with guns, I think that only hunting guns should be able to be owned.

The right was made way back when we might have needed a militia, thats what the right is for. We don't need a militia now so we don't need hand guns and we sure as hell cant be trusted with them.

Oh and to add to your list Mersh.. conservatives also back tougher censorship.

I ♥ U

Actually, it's illegal for a convicted felon to own body armor, but since it's also illegal for them to own a gun, it's a moot point. If you don't have any felony convictions, go big.

Tanks and other military hardware are not illegal to own either. They are de-militarized (ie, guns removed, etc) prior to sale, but there aren't federal laws preventing ownership by civilians.

And for the record, I own guns, body armor, de-mil'd parts, as well as other police issue equipment. Ownership != Illegal use.

Is it legal to own a fully equipped tank though?

*EDIT* Sorry- mis-read your post.

Ok, so why don't people fight for their right to own a fully loaded tank?