2006-10-02 13:25:54 · 46 answers · asked by fakeid412 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
To those who agree shouldn't abandon guns... also afarid of people break in your house and need it to defend yourself.... but what about their guns are more powerful then yours?!... Don't you think is still better off if no one able to get guns at all??... We had so many shooting problems all over USA, but had you ever heard of that many problems from any other countury?!.... And if there were no guns in anyone's house...... Would it be that many people SHOOTING in school and work area????.....I think we better off without to own one at all!!!
2006-10-03 09:11:31 · update #1
Yes. Guns are one reason USA is the laughing stock of the world. Another reason is G. W. Bush.
2006-10-02 13:27:31 · answer #1 · answered by farahwonderland2005 5 · 1⤊ 10⤋
The 2nd Amendment is the protector of all rights. If you think that giving up that right is a great idea, check out how protected the citizens of Washington D.C. are or London. Both are gun free and riddled with violent crime, well above average for cities of their size that honor right to bear arms. Adolph Hitler has a famous quote where he was speaking of a Utopian society, free of guns and controlled by police. As a police officer, I can assure you that we can't be everywhere, all the time. Whether you like it or not, guns (in the hands of responsible citizens) are necessary.
2006-10-02 21:32:45 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
My teacher was saying something about when Jefferson wrote the Ammen... to "Bear Arms". Was Jeff was writing out on a broad outlook of the U.S.A. He was trying to generalize it for the future. But during that time there were soldiers attacking the colonist. An they had no big army to take on the Brits. so they had to let the colonist to have arms to strengthen the army. So maybe the Ammen. should be revised for the future. Scary though we need guns to protect ourselves. But in the future, and right now they are creating non-lethal weapons. So maybe we can go that way. Maybe only use rubber bullets.
2006-10-02 13:47:46 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Certainly not, first off when the government outlaws guns, the criminals will be the only ones left that own them. You would have only taken away the law abiding citizens right to own firearms. Look at Washington D.C. and see how their strict gun control laws have worked, crime has soared. Second of all, it is a constitutional right that anyone who wishes to may own firearms. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
2006-10-02 13:41:46 · answer #4 · answered by jerkyman45 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't matter if you are for or against guns, the founding fathers put this in the constitution for a very good reason. If law enforcement/government are left with all the guns - what could happen?
and for that very reason, there will always be a right to bear arms - regardless of the abuses or opinions.
see James Madison on this one.
2006-10-02 13:55:22 · answer #5 · answered by Hammy 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is a direct violation of the Second Amendment. The problem is not legal guns, but illegal ones. All you would do is take guns out of citizen's hands when they need one to defend themselves. Criminals are going to try to get guns no matter what the regulation.
2006-10-02 13:28:00 · answer #6 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. People that want to kill someone will find away without a gun. A knife or baseball bat works just as well to end a life.
You can abandon all the guns you want but there are too many already out there and you can't recall them or a bullet once it has been fired. And you can't recall a knife blade one it has sliced but the knife blade does not run out of ammunition.
2006-10-02 13:36:15 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
No, but I think that if the gun is not in safekeeping and a child/someone who shouldn't have it gets the gun-then the owner of the gun should be punished for the crime as well maybe held responsible as an accomplice. Make the gun owner assume responsibility for the actions of the gun.
2006-10-02 13:31:57 · answer #8 · answered by brattybard 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not!!!!! Doing so will allow the crooks to have guns, and the innocent residents to have no protection. Crooks will have guns, no matter what the law is. They certainly have the means. We don't. If we go for these gun control laws, we are just royally screwing ourselves. Think about it.
2006-10-02 13:32:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
We should abandon guns for resident or privacy ONLY after we do away with all criminals ...so that there is no need to have a gun for self protection.
If YOU don't want a gun......don't have one. It's just like abortions...whats so hard to understand here?
FREEDOM OF CHOICE!
2006-10-02 13:30:46 · answer #10 · answered by Joey Bagadonuts 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
No we have the right to bear arms but when you ask why does any one need machine guns or ak47 or any assault guns I will agree these are not necessary and no one needs to own such a weapon .They should not be sold by any gun sellers or any mfg in America. Guns for hunting and collections or target practice and for protection should not be banned this would normally be a hand gun. rifles for hunting.
2006-10-02 13:36:21 · answer #11 · answered by Lolo 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋