Do people want a less violent life enough to amend the Second Amendment to include only nonlethal weapons?

Question

Is living a longer, safer life important enough to you and your future generations to want to amend the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to only include the use of non-lethal weapons such as tasers, pepper spray guns, mace, etc? You are also invited to come to my blog called Marilyn's Non-Violent Planet htttp://www.non-violent.com for more detailed information on this subject and more.

Answer 1

it's a difficult question. first of all, in cities and with the recent outbreak of about ten school shootings in the us and canada, it would definitely be beneficial. then again, out in the country it may sometimes take the police too long to respond and residents feel they need firearms to protect themselves. either way, there is no completely clear solution.

Answer 2

The point of having the right to bear arms is so that if our government becomes tyrannical, that we can have the ability to take up arms and take back the country in revolution. The main people we'd end up fighting are the police and the military personnel that remain fighting for the tyrants. Kind of hard to take back the country with pepper spray and tasers when the people we're fighting have actual weapons.

If it weren't for our second amendment, we'd have no first amendment. There's been nothing that shows living in a place with high levels of gun control are safer in this country. In fact, the city with the strictest gun laws, Washington DC, also has the highest level of crime rates. All you end up doing with these laws is disarming the people that would only use them to defend themselves from murders, muggers, etc. These are already people that have the mental and psychological capacity to use a gun to kill an innocent person. You think violating a gun law is really going to make that much difference to them?

Why is it that the people who are fighting so strongly to amend the second amendment are among the same people who would be among the first to fight against amending the first amendment? Neither should be changed. And a gun is only as dangerous as the person who's holding it.

Answer 3

Why do you want to change the Constitution? Leave it alone! It seems to me that if it ever happened and you or a family member were shot fatally or not by a criminal lawbreaker you would be the first one in line to complain about amending the Second Amendment. It all sounds nice at first about a longer, safe life, but on the other hand your trying to go about it the wrong way. Why don't we penalize criminals who use firearms in any type of crime a little harsher then what the Judicial System allows? For example, lock them up and throw away the key.

Answer 4

yet another mind-blowing thought from the geniuses working the rustic into the floor.comparable concept attitude of the Bailout and the Fence.i might snort if it wasn't so pathetic.i assume they got here up with that one to music down bullets fired with the help of weapons in a criminal offense. won't artwork besides. First ammo could be stolen with the help of the criminals or faked and blame somebody else for the crime.it is functional doubt in my recommendations.fairly some crooks will walk away smiling.in basic terms think of what number roles it is going to create.advertising all that bogus coding equipment ammo on the black marketplace.If Obama is so bent on gun administration why does he get protection from the secret provider.ought to he no longer prepare what he preaches and ban them from donning hid weapons as properly.via fact that there are fairly some wonderful human beings accessible.difficulty-loose experience is that regulation abiding electorate do no longer use weapons for crime.they're used for defense. States that permit hid weapons have decrease crime.remember while Washington D.C. replaced right into a city "below siege"with the help of a great type of intense jacking autos,B.M.W's Nissan's and so on.? by no potential heard any pickup autos getting jacked.Why via fact the thought that there could be a gun toting redneck using that truck replaced into the image the crooks had.in basic terms the nonetheless that there have been weapons for defense stored them from jacking autos.much greater what form of persons voted for this team at the beginning?Very scared or brainwashed.human beings prepared to provide up their top for fake "protection"

Answer 5

the thing is it would be nice to live in a safer less violent world, but what happens when the law abiding citizens have insufficient means of protection and end up being victims? criminals are criminals for the simpler eason that they do not care to abide by the laws. even if you change the 2nd amendment people will still have guns, and it will be the ones that cause all the violence in the first place. a better solution would be more restrictions on weapons, and make it harder to get them. then when people break those laws we crack down on them harder.

Answer 6

ABSOLUTELY NOT!!! The right to bear arms (in a regulated militia) as the Bill of Rights states is there to protect Americans AGAINST the tyranny of a federal government. Unfortunately our founding fathers could never have envisioned the armory that the federal government has today versus that which the individual citizen is allowed by law to have. You don't have to worry about citizens that have legally registered firearms it's those that don't who you have to worry about. Take Australia for example, over the past few years there has been a strong push to remove firearms from the home and now there is more crime there than ever.

Answer 7

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The question is the amendment's intention to protect us from the government or protect us from other citizens, or both.

Obviously, this amendment does little to protect us the federal government, considering the firepower of today's government. So do we have the right to bear arms as protection against people that want to do us harm. I'd say yes. But should we have a restriction to the arms to used to protect ourselves. Again yes. The intention to protect oneself can be achieved through non-lethal weapons. But studies also show that the ability to carry lethal weapons may deter crime. My position is a limitation to reasonable firearms. You don't need an AK-47 to protect yourself. Plus people can have the right to hunt. Which isn't spelled out anywhere that I know of, but doesn't mean assault rifles and sub-machine guns. It means shotguns and semi-automatic rifles. My other position is that in order to hunt you should register your weapon(s), when you get your hunting license. I don't think that limits anyone's rights, but creates a registry so people will be less apt to use that weapon(s) in criminal activities. It doesn't fix everything, but it is a start.

Answer 8

then you depend on the government to defend you from outlaws who still have guns. youre in a lose lose situation.

You can ban guns till pelosi is blue in the face. but at the end of the day, only Law-Abiding Citizens will be turning in their guns, and hence disarming themselves, when they are victimized by the criminals who keep their guns and take advantage of all the disarmed people whom they can go ahead and rob, rape, murder without the fear of getting shot in the process.

you are enabling criminals, and disarming the victims. people kill people, not guns. put those mental defectives who want to kill and victimize people, behind bars, and under the needle.

The second amendment was made as an insurance policy for the rest of the constitution. should the government fail in protecting us (police, army), whether from criminals or people invading us, there will still be an armed citizenry fighting for what is right. And enabling america to survive.

And when china invades, like their generals and defense ministers keep telling their troops, they will not be using tasers or pepper spray to do us under.


beachbum- we won the revolution, because our armed citizenry, minutemen, had weapons (brown bess's) that could match the firepower of the British Musket. the minuteman was on par with the redcoat.(at this time, all firearms were single shot). is that brown bess still on par, with say the chinese military, should the chinese decide to invade (with every soldier having a machine gun)? No, we will be wiped out. responsible citizens should keep weapons, that are on par with most militaries, put whatever restrictions you want on them, but they should be allowed to be possessed in order to repel an attack on an enemy aggressor.

Arizona is armed to the teeth, under law, you can wear a firearm on your hip, and walk into a bank and do your business. Ive seen it happen. Responsible citizens can be trusted with firepower. many cannot, so have and enforce laws in place that ban felons and other mental defectives from owning them, fine. But for the continued survival of America, the armed citizenry must be able to fight on par with enemy infantry, with weapons on hand, on a moments notice, the minuteman.

Answer 9

You base everything on the false supposition that removing guns from law abiding people's hands would be a good thing.
Every jurisdiction that has outlawed guns has seen an increase in crime. Why is that? It is because if a criminal knows I may be armed and will shoot him, he is much less likely to attack me or invade my home.
If you want to give criminals free riegn, leave your house open and advertise, this is a weapon free home.
My home will still be protected by Smith & Wesson, Glock, Remington...

Answer 10

No. Guns don't kill, people do. Just because it might be against the law doesn't mean the criminals still won't get their hands on them and use them. Besides, there still are people that hunt or need them for other things. Many of these criminals already have a criminal record that states they can't own a gun and they still do. If you don't want one....don't own one. I don't. But I beleive totally in the right to have one if you choose to. Instead of taking rights away from the innocent, there needs to be more effort to round up the thugs that thrive on violence.