Gun control?

Question

Are guns outdated? Should we just outlaw all guns? The 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns; it just says we have the right to bear arms.

What would happen if instead of using gun to protect our houses, we used tazers?

What if we banned guns and made the penalty of position of a gun the same manslaughter?

What about a person’s right to due process? If you shoot someone in your house do you rob them of their 4th amendment rights?

If you must lock your gun up to proctect your family, will you have enough time to get it, unlock it, and use it? With a tazer you wouldn't have that problem.

I ment the 5th amendment not the 4th...sorry

Many of you have a problem with people proctecting themselve from the government. This doesn't make any sense, and show that the 2nd amendment is out of date.

People don't need to proctect themselve from the government with gun, and besides there's no way they could anyway.

Second we aren't near any other countries, and guns won't help against terrorist.

Answer 1

I DON'T LIKE GUNS THEY HURT INNOCENT PEOPLE

Answer 2

The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.

That was put in the constitution on purpose. Our founding fathers always wanted the citizens to have a means of protecting themselves from the government. They also believed that a government that fears its people will be at the service of its people.

Tazers sound nice, but what if more than one person comes in and what if they have guns. Tazers also do not work if the person is on certain drugs. If the person is tough enough mace will not work either. Then I have to think about Florida with their lose gun control. The number one person robbed down there is a tourist, the criminals stay away from natives because they are afraid of being shot.

Answer 3

OK, let go to the other side of this argument.

I have listened to this crap for the longest time.

You are allowed to bear arms to protect yourself from the GOVERNMENT, not just bad people.

If it was not guns they want to outlaw, it would be tazers. (I recall a lawsuit that the gun control types are doing to outlaw tazers now too.)

You can never please you gun control types. ONLY the people who listen to the law will obey the law. When you arm the population that does follow the law, you will find that the crime rate drops. Wonder why.

Oh, and for those who think that guns hurt people, HOW???
Gun's do not kill people, People kill people. More like people who do not follow the law kill other people. (They don't follow the law anyways, so what will a law do for them??)
A gun will just sit there and do nothing...
It will actually rust eventually because it has never been touched. You have been brainwashed so bad about Guns that you are blinded by what kills people more then even guns do.

#1 killer in the USA is NOT a gun, it is a baseball bat. They are not outlawed either... Should we outlaw those? How do you regulate stupidity?

Answer 4

no, we need guns to protect ourselves from oppresive governments, criminals, and eachother, hunting and just plain shooting overly aggresive bottles.

the 4th ammendment, 1st and others are rights granted to you by the state. individuals however do not have to respect such rights, except where they coincide with other laws. Free speach for example, your boss can fire you for saying the wrong thing although you have the right to say it without being arrested, he does not have to respect your 1st ammendment right.

Shooting a burgalar in your home is supposed to be self defense but many are just looking for an excuse to shoot someone. These should be handled on a case by case basis and if your life was not threatened you can't shoot them for breaking and entering. I believe that there are laws about what is the neccessary use of force and you can get in trouble for doing this, although likely at a reduced sentence if any. They can look at motivation and mindset when determining this.

tazers aren't toys either, you shouldn't leave them lying around for small children to play with. Especially since many people think they are safe. You can rupture internal organs, seizures, heart problems etc.

Answer 5

Guns are one type of arms. To ban them would infringe on that second amendment right.

In theory we should be allowed to own any and all arms, but there are in fact restrictions in place. Private citizens cannot own F-16s, or tanks, or nukes. It's a truism that no Right is absolute. The most famous example of that is that freedom of speech does not include the right to stand up and yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, when there is none.

Each person's right end where the next person's rights begin. You cannot shoot a man for walking across your lawn, but if he breaks into your house and threatens you, you can shoot him in order to save your life. In this case, your right to life trumps his right to due process.

Trigger locks do make it more difficult to defend ones self, but they are a needed precaution when children may have access.

The real reason the Second Amendment exists is not so that people can defend themselves against criminals, or to enable them to hunt. It is there so that if the government should ever become a tyranny, the people will have the means to rise up and overthrow it.

Answer 6

Guns are the only thing between a populace and oppression, the first thing Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. did was ban private ownership of firearms. The whole reason the second amendment was written was a protection against tyranny and oppressive leaders. Secondly, a tazer can be abused just as much as a firearm, it can be used to kill if used incorrectly.

Answer 7

In my opinion the reason most people are against guns is because they are not educated in what they are how or can be used for. I have a rifle ,my wife has a shot gun ,we have used both to defend our family pets from being food for cougars and raccoons and bears .No we have not shot at them. they have a right to be here too . just close by so they got the hint they weren't welcome and never came back .Hand guns should be regulated .try that with a tazer.

Answer 8

You are correct; the Constitution mentions arms, not guns in particular. The other thing that it mentions is that we must have a well regulated militia. I personally have never seen a militia of taser-carrying warrior before in my life. This right may be overlooked as we all sit safe at our desk at home, but imagine if you were living in Israel right now. The purpose of that right becomes ever more obvious.

The 4th amendment relates to the Government regulation against unreasonable search and seizure of your personals. At no time does it say you cannot protect yourself.

Answer 9

Some members of the Left-handed Left are saying that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with guns. they say the phrase "the right to bear arms" means we have the right to roll up our sleeves and bare our arms from the elbow done.

If they are right then the issue becomes moot.

A lot of our problems today is that our lawyers spend too much time trying to re-invent our words,..and our Supreme Courts spend too much time allowing the lawyers to bring silly cases before the Court.

Answer 10

Guns

"What would happen if instead of using gun to protect our houses, we used tazers?"

The second amendment has nothing to do with protecting your house or Duck hunting.

It is all about shooting rogue government officials that twist the constitution and abuse the citizens

Answer 11

Adolph Hitler outlawed all guns except those carried by his own Wehrmacht and Schutzstaffel troops. England by that time had pretty well done away with personal firearms also, and had to beg private American citizens to donate their sporting firearms so England could defend their own shores. Exactly who do you think will donate any to us if we Americans allow personal firearms to be registered and later confiscated, as has now happened in England, Canada, and Australia?