So that political agendas can be fulfilled. Gun control is less about guns than it is about control, as evidenced by examples such as the Clinton-imposed "Assault" Weapons Ban of 1994, which didn't ban firearms, but rather, cosmetic features, and claimed that it was somehow relevant to reducing crime. In reality however, gun control makes crime go up dramatically, because the public has no proper self defence, and criminals (who get THEIR guns through the black market and smuggling illegally) have free roam over their victims without worry of being opposed.
__________________________________________
Adolf Hitler banned guns then took full control over Germany.
If you are "pro" in the gun control debate, you are for less gun control. In other words, you are "pro-gun".
There is no "gun control" amendment.
opposing.Versus, contra, counter"I am against gun control" could also be phrased "I'm opposed to gun control", "I'm anti-gun control", "I'm an opponent of gun control", "I disagree with the idea of gun control"
Gun Control
They have gun laws. Whether they actually have the words "gun control" within any of their firearms legislature, I don't know, but they do have gun control.
no answer... But better yet. Gun controll doesn't need any questions
Yes, Ross Perot is for gun control. He was not a typical Conservative and was pro gun control and pro choice.
It is extremely anti-gun control.
Negative. Because, by definition, criminals will not obey gun control laws, honest citizens need access to firearms to protect themselves from the armed criminals. Gun control laws have never succeeded in protecting honest citizens. They have been most successful being used by oppressive governments to suppress dissent by their own citizens. Hitler, Stalin, and numerous other strong leaders recognized this and instituted strong gun control laws early in their regimes. Gun laws only increase crime.
A person against gun control. A pro-gun advocate. A pro-2A advocate (in the US).
The thing people need to realise about so-called gun control is that it does not equate to crime control. If it's being imposed for the sake of a political agenda, it can certainly work to a political aim. If it's being imposed as a feel good measure - a substitute for actual crime deterrence and control - it cannot.
A person could need a flame gun for multiple reasons. They could use it to start a fire. It could also be used to melt snow off a driveaway or sidewalk. Sometimes people uses a flame gun for weed control.