Gun control?

Question

Do you believe that the 2nd Amendment is outdated? And do you believe it's possible to ban guns completely, even from law enforcement?

Okay, so banning guns is not a good idea. But is it really necessary to make automatic weaons available to the general public?

Answer 1

Okay, lets assume the 2nd amendment was outdated. So we ban guns. Has any ban every worked? Did prohibition work? Has the ban on illegal drugs worked? Banning something just drives the price up and puts it in the hands of criminals. Banning guns will make criminals richer and put legitimate dealers out of business. There will be absolutely no controls on who gets guns as criminals are not going to do a background check. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

PS I hate guns but I am a realist.

Answer 2

First, I do not believe that it is outdated to want our states to possess "well-regulated militias" like the National Guard, just in case we need them. That is what the 2nd Amendment provides for, not necessarily for almost anyone to possess almost any kind of firearm.

Second, although I personally favor some forms of gun control, I do not believe it is desirable to ban firearms entirely, even if it were possible. The gun nuts have a somewhat valid point when they argue that an armed citizenry is the last defense against tyranny, and I think the Founders would have agreed with that thinking. If the government ever got over-the-top crazy or came under foreign domination, we the people may very well need every hunting-iron, every bigot's illegal machine gun, every drug dealing hippy's handgun, and so on if we are to preserve our liberty. History happens, and it's good to know that at least some of us are prepared.

Finally, even if it were desirable, it would not be possible. The UK has had a ban for a long time, even for most law enforcement. There are still guns in the UK and people being killed by them. It just leaves the cops at a disadvantage when they have a gun-carrying criminal to capture. Some controls are definitely needed, but a careful balance must be struck.

Answer 3

If you're going to ask if the 2nd Amendment is outdated you have to ask if all the amendments are outdated.
No I don't.
Yes it is possible to ban guns completely, even from law enforcement. They did it in England. The crime rate has skyrocketed, but they did it. They also did it in Washington D.C. Do I need to mention the crime rate there?
If you remember correctly, just after hurricane Katrina, the government forcibly disarmed law abiding citizens in New Orleans. They didn't take the guns away from the criminal gangs that were shooting at rescue helicopters. Why? Because they were criminals and weren't going to do what the government said anyway.
As for fully automatic weapons... Why not? You currently have to go through a rigorous background check by the BATFE and the local Sheriff's department. Once that is done you are licensed to own it and it's registered with the federal govt. BTW, the federal government is allowed to come check on it ANY TIME THEY WANT, with no notice and for no reason. Talk about your big brother.
It seems to me that with all the laws we currently have on the books that only law abiding citizens are going to all the trouble to get guns. NOT. Criminals get guns too. But do you think they follow all the laws to get them? No. That's why they're criminals, so if they are already ignoring those laws, would making more laws for them to ignore make any sense?

On a side note, the murder and nonnegligent manslaughter rate in Florida was well above the national average and increasin,g until 1987 when it started to decline. It has remained at or below the national average ever since. Do you know what happend in 1987? Florida passed it's concealed carry law.

Also, Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in the country. It also has the lest strict concealed carry laws.

Answer 4

In my opinion, the 2nd amendment is continually misinterpreted, particularly for convenience by the likes of the NRA. I believe the language goes something like "....it being the right of a well regulated militia to bear arms...". Counter arguments are always thrown up such as "define a well-regulated militia". Gun industry lobbyists love to play the fear factor that our rights are being infringed upon if the 2nd amendment is in any way tampered with.

If it is interpreted literally, there should be no problem. It does not specifically state that an individual has the right to bear arms. Furthermore, how anyone such as the NRA can defend the right of individuals to purchase assault weapons is beyond me. Who uses those for hunting?

I believe we'd all be better off if all guns were collected and banned.

Answer 5

According to the Federalist Papers that were written by Madison automatic weapons (while they were far from existing at the time) would be a necessity because the whole purpose for private ownership of firearms were to keep the Federal Government from over stepping it's prescribed duties in the Constitution. Estentially, believing that the National government should be afraid of the citizenry rather than the citizenry afraid of the Government. Since our founding document guarentees us the right to life, there must be a mechanism for us to be able to protect that right

While I have no idea what your adversion to firearms is, I ask you what would you have done if you stayed in New Orlenes and the government couldn't protect you and you had a group of bad guys that wanted to attack your family. Would you have had people give up their only means of protection since the police couldn't do anything to stop the looting?

The average response in Los Angeles for the police to respond is 15 minutes. A person bleeds out with in thirty seconds.

Fact of life number two: there are people that want to harm others. There are three options to respond to this. 1. Be a victim. this isn't appealing to me to risk that a bad guy is just going to take my wallet. There are enough bad guys that kill those they rob. 2. Run away. This is ok but you still have a bad guy that could harm someone else. I could almost live with this but I'm to old to run. 3. Stand your ground. If you want to be a victim go ahead, but let those of us who want to go home to our families keep our constitutional rights, that are also natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The criminal is the one that should suffer not law abiding citizens.

The thing is the average citizen (I said citizen, a criminal is not a citizen) is never going to pull a weapon in self-defense.

The self-defense act that the average person may actually have to do is the defense against a wild animal. We have had mountain lion attacks in this state. If I go hiking I carry because I'm to old to fight the animal of with a knife, let alone my bare hands I carry. I have never had a firearm go off by itself but I have seen a rockslide that occured without any seen influence, so are you for banning rocks?

Answer 6

No, no, & no! Criminals do not obey the laws, do you honestly believe they will turn them in? The 2nd Amendment also is for our protection from our own government in case of a possible dictatorship. The states & cities in the U.S. with the highest crime have the toughest gun laws, check it out! What the Londoner tells you is completely wrong, England crime has shot up since their gun ban (40%), now only the criminal has guns there! (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive\200204\FOR20020418e.html) We need tougher sentencing for criminals, not more laws taking away our liberties. "Decent people" don't go around shooting other people even if they all carry a gun.

Answer 7

I live in the UK. We have no "right" to bare arms. London is comparable in size and population to New York. Our gun crime rate is 97.5% lower than New York's. We, and the rest of europe have an almost non-existant gun crime tally in comparison to the states. Do I need to say more? Stop hiding behind an amendment in your constitution that was ratified during colonial times when guns were necessary. This is 2006, civilisation has moved on and so should you.

BAN THE SALE OF FIREARMS TO CIVILIANS FOR GOOD!!!

Answer 8

The 2nd Amendment is not outdated. It cannot and should not be repealed. It exists for a very specific reason and that reason is still important today. It allows the public to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. Taking guns away from people who misuse them will only force them to find other things to misuse. Taking guns away from everyone is a horrible idea.

Answer 9

it truly is the interior maximum perception of mine that gun administration does not and could no longer each and every artwork. Now, although the gun ban information you have is truly exciting it does not propose it truly is actual. i'm spending alot of my time to confirm all which you mentioned to extra my argument that gun administration does not artwork. What i will say that a sufferer that fires back LIVES LONGER. this is the actuality on the grounds that individual ahas some thing to shield themeselves with. If the folk in each and all of the international locations listed have been to have had weapons and the government nonetheless tried to kill them they could ahve been met with armed resistance and a there could eb a lots smaller physique count huge sort. I dont decide to undertaking some distance from topic yet while the colonists fought for the liberty of the colonies to offer us united states of america there replace into the Minutemen (militia) and the militia. The militia replace into basically approximately entirely armed with Kentucky long Rifles at the same time as the militia replace into armed with soft bore muskets. The long rifle replace into rifled which made the bullet flow straiter and it went farther. while our forefathers wrote the bill of Rights it replace into their motive to be particular that that usually stayed the comparable that the U. S. electorate had equivalent footing with that of a central authority controled miltiary incase the U. S. government grew to alter into corrupt the electorate ought to combat back.

Answer 10

No, I don't think it's possible to ban the guns from law enforcement. Trying to do something like that would be like telling people to stop committing crimes and they listen. If they ban guns from the law enforcement, where would you think you'd be able to go to live your life out safe???