2006-07-02 17:49:50 · 14 answers · asked by Kendall G 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Yes. The only thing that fire arms are used for are target practice and killing and some pointless tournemants. The only reason why there is such thing as a fire arm is to kill people.
2006-07-02 17:54:22 · answer #1 · answered by Lonetree 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We have one of the best, if not the best, government in the world for freedom and power. It works. It is constantly under revision and carefully protects it's true values from careless revision. The government is NOT out to get us. We are still the government and it still answers to the majority, however much the minority screams that it doesn't.
However, those who would take over our government, turn it socialist, or otherwise attempt a takeover hesitate. They hesitate because we have so much say over our government. But most of all, they hesitate because we'd shot them. We'd all shoot them. If they took over our government and actually started a dictatorship we would kill them When I say dictatorship I am not talking about the nonsense being spouted by those who don't understand how our government works and are still stuck on claiming President Bush didn't win AFTER they lost to a system they supported right up until they didn't get what they wanted, and this has been tried by BOTH sides in our history, check it out.
We should never give up our rights unless it is to DEFEND our nation against invaders, and certainly not give up rights that we can't get back easily or couldn't lose easily. The government could spy on us if they wanted to and broke their bond with us, and do so quite easily. But prying the guns out of our hands takes our direct cooperation! Not in my lifetime!
2006-07-03 01:03:42 · answer #2 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not a full ban. But I beleive you should have a valid reason for the ownership of the gun. Such as hunting, Buisness or home protection, Goverment or Protection agencies, etc...
Don't pull the second admendment becouse there is more then "Right to Bear Arms", finish reading and you can see that the admendment is outdated and no longer needed.
2006-07-03 00:55:23 · answer #3 · answered by theaterhanz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everybody has a right to protect them self and their loved ones. Anybody who thinks outlawing guns is the way to make anything better is either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid. Outlawing them is not going to keep them away from anybody who wants one. I've lived in that world, I know. You may think you're protected from foreign attack by our armed forces and police but once again, you're wrong. I don't use a gun any more, I don't believe in killing needlessly but I do own weapons, just in case. That is my right under the constitution as set down by our founding fathers and I will keep my weapons.
2006-07-03 01:10:09 · answer #4 · answered by oldman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have to say no, it is our right to bear arms, it was stipulated because the British walked all over the colonist. I think the Swiss have a good answer every man serves in the military, regardless of social stature, for a certain period of time and keeps their rifle till death.
Just food for thought.
wanderer
2006-07-03 01:02:26 · answer #5 · answered by wanderer 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell no. Hitler tried to control guns. There's a reason why we have the Second Amendment. Also, guns save lives. The reason why is that criminals will have guns no matter what, because they own them illegally. Having citizens with guns lowers the crime rate. If criminals know you might be armed, they will be less likely to break into your house.
2006-07-03 01:02:14 · answer #6 · answered by spaldingballa07 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
How could we defend ourselves from the government if they tried to convert to communism. That is why the second amendment is there. That's why we need semi automatic weapons.
As long as the people are armed it makes it harder for a dictator to take over.
2006-07-03 00:55:12 · answer #7 · answered by Luchador 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, it's our constitutional right. Why should only the army, cops, and bad guys have guns. We have every right to defend ourselves by what ever means necessary.
2006-07-03 00:55:57 · answer #8 · answered by chupakabra123 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because only criminals will have guns among the civilian population. Gun control advocates seem to conveniently forget that simple fact. Crime would be worse and innocent people more defenseless.
2006-07-03 00:59:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes,I think it should be banned.The harm a gun in the wrong hand would do.
however,those under special danger should be allowed to apply for ownership of a gun.
2006-07-03 01:00:18 · answer #10 · answered by P.Bentia 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋