pDo gun control laws need to be more or less strict than they are now?

Next>

Results

52 %

Less strict

30 %

More strict

18 %

Kept the same

@Jan '13 c 455 comments V 1,599 votes

Detailed Results Next Debate Vote Now

Activity Stmts Popular

1599 Votes

2 hr
engineerdva voted

v Kept the same
u

12 hr

rebos30

v More strict

Check the news .enough said.

Post
u

14 hr
steve2 voted

v More strict
16 hr
Greatkaven voted

v More strict
17 hr
readynow2 voted

v More strict
u

19 hr
MaryCrum voted

v Kept the same
u

19 hr
KalyR7116 voted

v More strict
20 hr
BudH voted

v Less strict
21 hr
aa5j voted

v Less strict
21 hr
Amy2723 voted

v More strict
23 hr
DreamStat1c endorsed killermrk

v More strict
u

Tue
Jeff50 voted

v Less strict
Mon
Hannah41 voted

v Less strict
Mon
wakeup voted

v Less strict
u

Mon

robbob280

v More strict

why do we need automatic wepons or extra high power rifles . we only use them for target or hunting .

Post
Mon
LHoran voted

v Kept the same
Mon
Glange1 endorsed Neo_NtheMatrix

v Less strict
u

Mon
Richard22 voted

v More strict
u

Mon
DesignerLM voted

v Kept the same
u

Mon
o_oo_e voted

v Kept the same
Mon
mongo voted

v More strict
Mon
DonMyrick endorsed Bobolinsky

v Less strict
Mon

Your_Name_Here

v Less strict

Criminal control laws need to be more stringent than they are now. Those charged with enforcing the laws should be paid based on performance metrics instead of just paid. Maybe they will eventually figure out how to do their job.

Post
Mon
starman1 voted

v Less strict
u

Mon
Yinzer voted

v Less strict
Mon
bigtowron voted

v Less strict
Sun
doodadson voted

v Less strict
Sun
egrauel voted

v More strict
Sun
CoreyBairre voted

v More strict
May 19

CommonCents

v More strict

Automatic weapons and multiple shot clips should be available to military and law enforcement only. Better background checks are a must, otherwise the average law abiding citizen has a constitutional right to bear arms. When you allow automatic weapons with a multiple shot clips to the average citizen it's not about protection it's about revenge.

Post
May 19
Carach voted

v Less strict
May 19
dimsum voted

v More strict
May 19
Ahzoov voted

v More strict
u

May 19
rahoo voted

v More strict
u

May 19

climatology

v More strict

UK MEMBER, we have some of the toughest gun laws in the world, no-one needs a real auto weapon, they should be banned and made single shot only.

Post
u

May 19

Politixuser11

v More strict

The number of gun deaths that occur in the USA are a clear indication that it's too easy for the wrong people to get their hands on guns!

Post
May 19
WhiteJack43 voted

v Less strict
u

May 19
aledar voted

v Kept the same
May 19
louisrogers496 endorsed killermrk

v More strict
May 19

almknz69

v Less strict

Present laws go un-inforced now. Only those that obey said laws now will be restricted by more strigent laws. Now background checks should be IMHO to organized gun shows, if and when they add (after mental condition has been properly adjudicated), mental health issues that would effect any gun purchase.

Post
May 19
Mrkwa voted

v Less strict
May 19
shootist1671 voted

v Less strict
May 19
bushMaster63 voted

v Less strict
u

May 18
DonEros voted

v Less strict
u

May 18
butterflysky endorsed Iamjim42

v More strict
May 18
DamnGunslinger voted

v Less strict
May 18
Bex voted

v Less strict
May 18
RevJdubs endorsed Neo_NtheMatrix

v Less strict
May 18
anthonyc endorsed killermrk

v More strict
u

May 18
MellowGuy voted

v More strict

u

12 hr

rebos30

v More strict

Check the news .enough said.

Post
u

Mon

robbob280

v More strict

why do we need automatic wepons or extra high power rifles . we only use them for target or hunting .

Post
Mon

Your_Name_Here

v Less strict

Criminal control laws need to be more stringent than they are now. Those charged with enforcing the laws should be paid based on performance metrics instead of just paid. Maybe they will eventually figure out how to do their job.

Post
May 19

CommonCents

v More strict

Automatic weapons and multiple shot clips should be available to military and law enforcement only. Better background checks are a must, otherwise the average law abiding citizen has a constitutional right to bear arms. When you allow automatic weapons with a multiple shot clips to the average citizen it's not about protection it's about revenge.

Post
u

May 19

climatology

v More strict

UK MEMBER, we have some of the toughest gun laws in the world, no-one needs a real auto weapon, they should be banned and made single shot only.

Post
u

May 19

Politixuser11

v More strict

The number of gun deaths that occur in the USA are a clear indication that it's too easy for the wrong people to get their hands on guns!

Post
May 19

almknz69

v Less strict

Present laws go un-inforced now. Only those that obey said laws now will be restricted by more strigent laws. Now background checks should be IMHO to organized gun shows, if and when they add (after mental condition has been properly adjudicated), mental health issues that would effect any gun purchase.

Post
May 18

alexpinca

v More strict

The constitution provides the right to own arms...it doesn't say anything about the right of society to place reasonable controls on those guns. EVERY PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS SOME RESTRAINTS INCLUDING FREEDOM OF SPEECH...SO PLEASE GET OFF THE CONSTITUTION KICK.

Post
u

May 17

jerder

v More strict

As long as people can purchase weapons at gun shows and private gun shops without having a background check done, criminals, possibly terrorists, gang members, domestic abusers, etc. can circumvent current laws and sell or use those weapons to perpetrate violence against individuals, rivals, family members, and groups of citizens targeted by persons who are psychotic, schizophrenic, etc.

B1

Post
u

May 17

Oink

v Less strict

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.

r1 reply

Post
u

May 17

factologest

GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE BUT PEOPLE WITH GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

Post @factologest
u

May 17

marcyr

v Less strict

2nd Amendment was written for a reason...not just for hunting, sourse of food, but the most basic right of protection against crime & tyranny. Remember if you allow this government to take your weapons, you will have no recourse, no protection, no more freedom! That is exactly what they want...total control over your lives. So don't be nieve. Look at Canada, UK, Spain, Aisa...these places are socialist, communists, markists regimes. These people have NO rights anymore. They rely on the government for food, housing, education, water, money, retirement, and most of all healthcare! This is the opposite of FREEDOM! WE had the greatest FREE country in the world. THAT has sl...

r1 reply

Post
u

May 17

factologest

Comment: How screwed up can one person get?

B1

Post @factologest
May 17

Asparagus

v Less strict

Just look at other countries/states where gun laws are highly restrictive and the answer becomes very clear...Doesn't work.

Post
May 17

tortdog

v Less strict

It's a fundamental right. Unless someone can put forward a persuasive argument on why restrictions on other fundamental rights should be permitted, do not mess with the Second Amendment.

Post
u

May 16

steveo

v More strict

We need background checks for gun sales and make selling military style weapons with large capacity magazines illegal.

Post
May 16

MrGreenHerb

v Less strict

Seeing my state in purple.. Quite disturbing.. IOWA FOR LESS STRICT LAWS ON GUNS

Post
u

May 15

Bellalovely19

v Less strict

This whole Gun Law thing is stupid. So your telling me when a terrorist blows up a building its the terrorists fault. But when a man kills someone with a gun its the gun fault?

Post
May 15

WVMountYouNear

v Less strict

The Constitution is clear that citizen's rights to arm themselves should NOT be infringed upon. This is for multiple reasons. Yes, for self defense, home defense and the defense of others is PART of the reason. But it has been said that a society not willing to fight for liberty and freedom doesn't deserve it. Who is willing to fight today? Who is willing to continually keep our government in check by the possibility of an armed revolt? There's no wonder liberals want to disarm us. We impede everything they have as goals. They want to dominate us... rule us... and enslave us to the "new normal" of 3rd world countries and pocketing our wealth. They want to turn us to ...

Post
u

May 14

liberpublican

v Less strict

People are unstable are getting more violent so what defense does that leave for the average citizen. I only say less strict for the sake of the millions of American citizens who are subtly losing their rights on bill at a time. What line of defense are we going to have when the government comes knocking at our doors?

Post
u

May 14

PattyFromTexas

v Less strict

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

Post
May 14

Goose

v Less strict

Only liberals believe that "the right of the people......" means "the right of the government" to keep and bear arms.

Post
R Load more comments...

May '12

Neo_NtheMatrix

v Less strict

I think the Constitution is quite clear on matters of gun control. There should be no laws trying to inhibit productive law abiding citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their property. The Trayvon Martin case is just one example of how a man is only here today because he had a gun to protect himself from a thug. When we start trying to disarm law abiding citizens you will find that only criminals will have guns. That's not the society we want to build for our children.

B13

r5 replies

e179 endorsed

Post
May '12

killermrk

v More strict

How many times must we let a mentally-imbalanced person take out innocent people before we realize that maybe it's a little too easy to get firearms? Also the fact that anyone over the age of 18 can walk into a walmart and buy a 12-gauge shotgun, without a single iota of background checking. But hey, that's America for you and anything else would be "TAKIN ARE GUNS!!!!"

B2

r8 replies

e104 endorsed

Post
May '12

Bobolinsky

v Less strict

Guns have limited lawful uses which can largely be summarized into, hunting, target shooting, and self-defense. None of these activities is why we have the second Amendment. We have the Second Amendment so that the people have the means to throw off the shackles of tyranny. Agree or disagree with the Second Amendment, but argue it on those terms. Don't talk to me about assault rifles not being practical for hunting. Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

B13

r4 replies

e51 endorsed

Post
May '12

ir0nw0lfe

v Kept the same

Restricting gun ownership punishes law abiding citizens as the criminals don't care how many laws you pass they will carry firearms until they are stopped. However, gun ownership is a HUGE responsibility and its not for everybody, so there need to be standards. I'm in favor of letting law abiding citizens own just about any firearm or magazine capacity with the following exceptions armor piercing rounds, HE rounds, and RPG type weapons. You want full auto- get a Class III license and meet the requirements.CCW laws should be up to the states and with the courts consistently ruling against cities that prohibit CCW by lawful citizens that should sort itself out fairly qui...

B2

e40 endorsed

Post
May '12

LeslieAbi

v Kept the same

Kept the same and just enforced better.

B2

e24 endorsed

Post
u

May '12

DrJohnson

v More strict

In order to legally own a gun, you should be required to take a gun safety course and own a lockbox big enough for each weapon. I own 13 guns. I am not against the Second Amendment; I just support more restrictions on gun laws. I have taken a gun safety course and I own a gun vault large enough for 25 rifles.

B1

r1 reply

e23 endorsed

Post
May '12

MarkJM

v Less strict

I believe SCOTUS ruled on this issue twice already. Heller vs. DC and McDonald vs. Chicago. Both, DC and Chicago, pushing for strict gun control measures lost. Both, DC and Chicago, under gun control has higher rates of murder than other US Cities that were more accepting of the 2nd Amendment (The Right to Keep and Bear Arms). I can understand keeping guns away from the insane and violent felons. However, law abiding taxpaying citizens have EVERY Right if they so choose to purchase a firearm for protection. I think, being this is a civil right, carry laws should be uni-lateral nationwide (i.e. if you are legally allowed to own and carry, all states should recognize tha...

B3

e17 endorsed

Post
May '12

marine1

v Less strict

It has NEVER been the gun, it has always been the person handling it kinda like goverment, its always been the dimwits handling it.

B4

r3 replies

e12 endorsed

Post
Jun '12

Iamjim42

v More strict

Every country with strict gun control has less crime than those without, especially the USA. The facts prove that removing guns, a machine whose sole purpose is to maim or kill, from the public greatly improved public saftey. The Second Amendment is an outdated relic of a disproven philosophy, just like the Eighteenth, and should be repealed as such. We need another Twenty First Amendment for public safety's sake.

e7 endorsed

Post
Jun '12

FollowTheMoney

v Less strict

More guns = Less crime. Guns don't kill people... People kill People. And by the way, some people need killing.

B1

r2 replies

e5 endorsed

Post

Politix

pDo gun control laws need to be more or less strict than they are now?

Results