How do you feel about private ownership of firearms?

Question

Where I live, everyone I know has a gun for hunting or target shooting, which is a lawfull purpose. In my state there is very little violent crime. I think that it is wrong for americans to give up there 2nd amendment rights because of violent crime that takes place. To me thats like giving up my driving privilages because people die in auto accidents. By the way more people die in auto accidents then by gun violence. What do you think about this God given right that we law abiding Americans have enjoyed for so long?

Who says that the NG is a well regulated militia and who says that private militias are not. A well reulated militia is the ability of the people to organize them selves and take up arms against an oppresive government. Think of 1776. The bible does mention modern weapons of the time. And the rights and freedoms we enjoy here in America are God given in spite of what you may think.

Answer 1

THAT is one of the only reasons I would consider the idea of staying in Arizona, we have both open carry and concealed carry in this state, and very few merchants will object to the open carry in their businesses. Wal-Mart did not allow the open carry but had to reconsider it, because people would not leave their firearms in their vehicles, they would drive across the street and go to K-Mart or Target where they did not forbid open carry firearms. I have a concealed permit, when I work I often work with criminals, so I have a handgun for personal protection at all times, and I have a back up usually too. I also have a bullet proof vest, that I have been encouraged to wear. Too hot!

I have been trained and re-certify at the range with Law Enforcement, and other state certified instructors as often as is required. I say if all of the good people in this country were armed and aware of gun safety and how to use their weapons appropriately, then we would have far less crime.

One point, who is going to walk into the convenience store with a knife to rob the clerk, when every cowboy and cowgirl in the store pull out guns and subdue and hold the suspect for the police? The lesson here would be, Never bring a knife to a gun fight...

Seriously we have had an increase of home invasions and theft related crimes in this area, because of the increase in Meth addicts. We have dangerous drug addicted people who are desperate enough to break in on you, do you want to be the person who becomes a victim? Do you want to be mauled or attacked in a parking lot?

It's time for Americans to wise up, the gun control does not keep illegal weapons from the hands of the criminals! Why should we be defenseless? It's time to fight back, America!

No, I plan to keep my guns, and I just hope I never have to use them, but if I do, I have the knowledge, and the right! I like it that way, no I NEVER have small children in my home, and I do use trigger locks and all of the "PC" (politically correct) gear for my weapons, I even have a gun safe for them, so do not say that I am irresponsible in any way I am a lot more cautious with my weaponry than many people are with their own children!

Thank you, this is a VERY good question, and something that all of us should consider! If you love your family, you need to be able to protect them! I think we should require arms for ALL Americans, and the training that would make them able and safe and responsible to own and use their firearms (if necessary).

Just an opinion, after the terrorist attacks how does any of us know that we can be safe? You know you can at least go out fighting if you are armed and responsible with your knowlege of firearms and weaponry!

Answer 2

It is necessary to understand the terms of the second amendment in light of the situation at the time it was written. In the 1780’s the civilians had access to the same weapons as the military so there was a fairly equal balance between them. Allowing citizens to have arms in their home provided a degree of protection from an abusive government. Our forefathers had just risked everything, their lives and property to overthrow an abusive government and they meant to see to it their descendants could do the same if ever the need should arise

The Militia Act of 1792 placed every able bodied man from the age of 18 to forty-five in the militia. Since the government as we now know it didn’t have the resources to furnish every man with a weapon they were expected to bring their own and to take it home with them when they were not in the active duty of the militia. What kind of militia would it be if half of them showed up with a shovel or an axe?

Therefore the last part of the amendment reads most clearly, (see brackets{ } )
“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.”}

This makes it clear that the people are the militia and the militia are the people. How can you separate them if they are the same? The people have the right to bear arms. When the British crown decided the colonies were “in rebellion” the first thing they did was attempt to confiscate the weapons. That alone should warn today’s citizens what to watch for when a government becomes oppressive.

The balance has now shifted toward the military. It has high tech weapons that the citizens do not have access to. So a revolution would be a very one sided event. The military would have a major advantage. There again it reverts to the Militia which is comprised of the citizens which today is the reserves and the National Guard. If ever the federal government became abusive it would fall on the states to organize the militias and battle the federal army just as they did in 1776.

The mere fact that citizens are allowed to own weapons helps to prevent a government from becoming abusive. The citizens could bolster the ranks of the National Guard should the need arise.

I have no problem with weapons being registered, that helps make it harder for criminals to get them and to track them if they are stolen and used in crime. Cars are registered and they can do more harm than weapons but I don't worry about the government confiscating my cars.

All through history, every people who gave up their weapons for a "good cause" were eventually oppressed and/or abused.

The right to own a weapon is not a God given right. It is a right washed in the blood of the 1776 militias and guaranteed by the forefathers of the USA when they put ink to paper.

Answer 3

I think gun-users (not gun-owners) should be licensed, just the same as car-drivers.

Anyone can buy a car, but if you drive it on the roads you need be licensed. If you do something wrong with your car, and you're not licensed to drive, the penalties increase.

I think it should be the same for gun-users. If someone commits a crime with a fire-arm, and they are not licensed, then the penalty should be much higher. And if they commit a violent crime, they lose their license. Just like DWI causes you to lose your driving license.

Ignoring the concept of God-given rights (since anyone can claim anything is God-given and God isn't going to testify in court otherwise), private gun ownership isn't even guaranteed in the US Constitution.

The 2nd 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." The key part is the first phrase, referring to the militia. Which balances some of the provisions and restrictions contained in Article I.

Answer 4

I think that in general, private ownership of firearms is fine. I don't currently own any, but I plan to in the near future. I don't have any illusions about using a gun for personal protection, but I wouldn't presume that no-one is in a position to do that.

I think that we might do better if we were to make this a regional issue rather than a federal or state issue. I can think of several zipcodes in this state where I think gun ownership should be outright banned, and quite a few more where I think there should be practically no restrictions at all on gun ownership.

I do hope that the Democrats loosen up on this issue - there are at least as many irrational anti-gun folks among the Democrats as there are irrational pro-gun folks among the Republicans, and the Democrats could easily take the high ground by saying "so long" to the irrational folks on our side.

Answer 5

I don't think it is a god given right to have a gun, as a matter of fact it is a privilege if you abuse that privilege I do not think you should qualify for a gun. I own guns, I have had a gun since I was 8 years old. My guns have never shot anything but targets and game animals. If I need to take up arms against a oppressive government I want to have some guns and ammo. This could be construed as an abuse but it isn't to me. To me that is why our forefathers give us the privilege to own guns. Just in case that the government gets out of the control of the people. By the way I am a democrat and have been told that I am extremely liberal. I do not listen to the NRA as they are a propaganda machine for the idiot repuglicans.

Answer 6

Private Gun Ownership is on the back burner of the far left and I'll tell you why. The NRA and some of its political allies dumped some serious democrats that were bent on gun control in the mid to late 1990's and they don't need to repeat that loss. America supports the 2nd amendment like all others and is not about to give it up. Especially not in a day and age when so many on the far left think we can negotiate with terrorist and blame America first for being attacked. That relates into a lot of people wanting to make sure they have themselves protected in a time of need. They just don't get that.

Answer 7

The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. As defined, the right resides within each of us. It was not granted by the government, and cannot be taken by the government. It is the ultimate guarantee that the government is the servant of the people, and not the other way around.

The highly regarded liberal constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe once thought that this was a collective right, but he has more recently changed his mind and now agrees that this is an individual right.

For insight into the Second Amendment, please see Federalist #29, which I've linked to below. It was written by Alexander Hamilton, the father of our Constitution, at a time when passage of the Constitution was still being debated.

Answer 8

first, I don't think its God-given. There weren't any guns in the bible.

Second, this is not necessarily a second amendment issue. How many of you are in a well regulated militia? And private militias don't count, those aren't well regulated. The National Guard is a well regulated militia.

Third, your comparison to driving is illuminating. There are many restrictions on who can own a car or be licensed to drive, all cars are registered, etc. If guns were as regulated as cars I think it would be better. The problem is that they are largely unregulated. I myself am a gun owner, and I see no problem with responsible regulation of gun ownership.

Answer 9

If they were to take guns away from all law abiding people , the only ones who would have guns are criminals .If they tooks every gun from every person , the criminals would go back to killing people with knives . What then , take away all of the knives ?
I think that our ancestors knew what they were doing when they added the right to keep and bears arms into the Constitution .
That is why the U.S. has never been invaded by a recognizable army .Terrorists are not an organized army .

Answer 10

Well in the Dominion of Canada you are only allowed certain weapons. Prohibited Firearms are fully automatic military assault weapons, semi-automatics which can be converted to automatics, along with a few other selected models not suitable for hunting or target shooting, short-barreled handguns, sawed-off shotguns and large capacity magazines. Also you need to get a licence in order to own a gun. I think that makes sense, maybe you should limit what kinds of weapons people should have?