why should private citizen own a gun?

Question

well, this is the topic I am writting about for my class,

Answer 1

I would start with the Constitution which says Americans have the right to have guns. Them there is the issue of protection. Why don't YOU think about it awhile as your teacher is going to be more impressed with your thinking then the collective forum's input to your laxy research.

Answer 2

Why shouldn't a private citizen own a gun? If the general population is not armed (either by education or weapons) then the government can instill its will whenever it wants. The armed population ensures its rights to education, fair trade, fair pay (freedom from slavery/honest work for honest pay). If the government does not do what it is supposed to do then the population has a way to make it right. Revolution. Look at some of the countries that do not have armed citizens? Iraq under Saddam and North Korea are two examples of a people that were/are subjected to a government that was totally controlling. In North Korea, the population believes that they way they live is some of the best conditions on the planet and that other countries and peoples have it far worse. The government controls what they eat, when they eat, if they eat, (only one fat guy in all of NK, Kim Jong Il) what they learn, if they learn, how they learn, the information they receive is totally controlled. Education is power. Owning a gun ensures that the private citizen remains private, or whatever they chose. Owning a gun comes with responsibility, the same responsibility that is expected from the government that is entrusted to protect and defend the freedom of the population that put it into power.

You don't blame the candy because a kid ate it, why blame the gun when a person uses it to kill.

The 2nd amendment ensures the rest of the constitution is enforced.

Answer 3

The second amendment does give American citizens the right to bear arms. In this day and age, I believe it is getting harder and harder to justify NOT owning a gun for personal protection.

I am not a violent person, and I would use a gun only if my life or property were being threatened. I know that hand guns require permits, and I believe you cannot carry them around with you unless you are in some sort of law enforcement. You can, however, keep a gun on your private property.

A gun is simply a form of protection, or it can be a vicious, offensive weapon. Until there is a change for the better in the hearts and consciouses of people, those who are upstanding and moral citizens would be wise in choosing to learn some form of self-defense--whether it be using a firearm, learning martial arts or simply learning how to duck and run like a bat outa hell.

Answer 4

A private citizen should have the choice to own or not to own a gun. The 2nd Constitutional Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Answer 5

It amazes me that the same people that complained about governments response to Katrina, would trust government to protect them.

The average response time in Los Angeles is 15 minutes. In my state it can take upwards of thirty minutes for a deputy to respond. It takes thirty seconds for a person to bleed out.

Then factor in animal attacks. We have had bicyclists attacked by mountain lions. I don't want to fight off a mountain lion with a knife let alone my bare hands.

The Founders would be appalled at such a concept because private ownership was another check and balance, keeping the federal government at bay.

Answer 6

because, over the _long term_, a human being is more likely to be murdered by a government (through an unecessary war or a genocide) than a private citizen. the body count of government vs. private individuals over the last several hundred years is enormously higher.

think about what tyrants try to do: disarm their citizens first.

hitler, pol pot, stalin, idi amin -- all of em took away their countrymens' guns before they sent them off to be slaughtered.

yeah, write this off as paranoid right wing kookery. but it also happens to be true.

Answer 7

to keep bad guys at bay
we and not the police are the last line of defense from anarchy
look into states or cities that have banned guns
and you find high crime as the criminals by definition do not respect any sort of law, much less gun laws
so banning or adding more gun laws does not affect them one bit
it only gives them a safe haven for committing crime knowing that the citizens at large are defenseless, but that liberal thinking for you, keep in mind the police come in AFTER a crime has committed, rarely before.

Answer 8

It builds strength in numbers, and show how well balanced our county is, an invading army would have a very hard time making any progress since the amount of unknowns with weapons, just look at Iraq, everyone has guns and explosives, and look how hard of a time we are having

Answer 9

There are more people murdered in the US than killed in Iraq. The right to bear arms is really the right to self-defense. If you believe in one then you believe in the other. Is your life or the life of a family member worth as much as that of a killer? The right to defend your own life is as basic as the right to breath in and out. Not being willing to defend yourself? Then why should anyone else defend you?

Answer 10

Because the Constitution says so. Our Constitution gives power to the people and the Government is supposed to do the peoples will. This will is somewhat dictated by the Constitution , which the people can change also.