2006-07-25 02:54:22 · 15 answers · asked by shannon s 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Should Not
Amendment II
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
2006-07-25 02:57:43 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The United States should place the same restrictions on guns that they do for driving a car.
Everyone has the right to own a gun, but they also have a responsibility to learn a few safety rules.
By the way, while everyone should be allowed to own guns if they've shown they at least know how they should be handled, I wouldn't rely to much on the Second Amendment for that right. If you read it closely, it would almost seem to mean the states have the right to their own militia rather individual citizens have a right to guns.
2006-07-25 02:59:58 · answer #2 · answered by Bob G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we passed a gun control law only honest people would turn in there guns leaving society at the mercy of the criminal other world, I have a constitutional right to bare arms and NOBODY is going to take that away
2006-07-25 03:02:53 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because gun control laws are not effective in detering violence, and possession is one of our Constitutional Rights.
Did you hear about the guy last week that attacked a bunch of co-workers with knives in a grocery store? Maybe we need knife controls too.
The answer is the same as it is for so many social ills, "enforce the laws we have on the books now, to the max". Quit being soft with punishments.
2006-07-25 03:03:04 · answer #4 · answered by scubadiver50704 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
never no gun control or for that manner any control over people who wish to remain free .IF my view of america is that i must prepare weapons to defend her then no one should have the right to prevent me from doing so .
THE law already prevents me from making my own high explosives even on my property for my own purpose's.IN the middle of 60 acres I am not free to make weapons to defend my freedom's.
ALL I have left that is legal is a few pop gun's that can not defend against a small force of men who may some day decide my land should belong to the state .
THEY have begun taking the land from people in america for what they call the good of the community.
I fear i will not be able to defend my land should they want mine and the only thing i can do is arm myself with the best weapons money can buy to defend against the abuse of the state and it paramilitary organization the police who come first to remove me and later the national guardsmen .
If i struggle to keep my property against these people i am at a loss without the ability to defend it .
I feel completely vulnerable to the police state and govvernment who have begun the taking of the legaly owne and occupied land on which people live..
2006-07-25 03:07:01 · answer #5 · answered by playtoofast 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The purpose of the Second Amendment, which by its very name, changed (or added to) the original Constitution. As you know, the first ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) were added so that the original thirteen colonies would sign. The 'Right to bare Arms' was intended to keep the Federal Government at a disadvantage in relation to the States, and the people in general. This helps to ensure that Government is By, of, and FOR the people.
2006-07-25 03:03:31 · answer #6 · answered by opusthepenguin_1999 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they shouldn't pass blanket gun control laws. Blanket laws don't protect us from the criminals that didn't go through legal channels to purchase the gun in the first place, so it doesn't prevent them from having a gun. But Blanket laws would prevent law abiding citizens from owning and carrying a gun to protect themselves and their own. How can you protect yourself from a criminal with a gun if you can't legally own one yourself?
A law like that would only force more law abiding people to purchase guns illegally for protection.
2006-07-25 03:01:35 · answer #7 · answered by Mary J 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are already all kinds of gun control laws.
The problem is, that these only affect law abiding people, the criminals are helped by that, because it leaves the law abiding people defenseless.
Where ever carrying permits have been more easily available, crime rates have dropped dramatically.
So, now what do you think?
2006-07-25 02:59:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the words of family gut the law says "The right to bear arms." Like actually bear arms. it was misinturpreted to be have a gun.
2006-07-25 02:58:03 · answer #9 · answered by wingnut3.1415 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They have passed many. It resulted in guns being in the hands of the criminals instead of the law abiding citizens.
2006-07-25 03:05:57 · answer #10 · answered by e1war 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the gangsters and thugs are going to get guns anyways, now at least the odds are evened. Plus what if someone invades the U.S. and we don't have guns? I guess we could shoot arrows at them or something, but I am not an Indian, I don't wear moccasins.
2006-07-25 03:03:52 · answer #11 · answered by Phil My Crack In 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋