Should we be able to own our own guns?

Question

Sure the Second Amendment gives you the right to own a gun.But I disagree...the truth is that if nobody had guns then nobody would get shot but that's not the case.I still think that we should ban guns.I mean say you get pissed of at someone and you just pull out a gun and shoot em.You probably regret that but now you spend the rest of your life in jail?

Answer 1

When you see how angry some people get on here just about a question makes you wonder about the sanity of allowing gun ownership...I`m in England where it isn't common...I hope it stays this way...

Answer 2

Actually, Banning has an excessively poor historical record, whether it's banning books in Boston, laws against exposing female ankles in 19th century London or prohibitions against selling condoms in Salt Lake City. All are history.

If anything is banned, it means there is a strong proclivity to have it, see it, do it, and that another group is opposed to those people having, seeing or doing it. The "I wanna's" will always prevail against the "Oh no you don't's."

In 1960, I saw a little high school girl, who had the timerity to wear a real bikini to a public pool, take by the arms and escorted out. Bikinis, she learned, were banned. Probably Baptists on the board, or a lurking hard-jawed Presbyterian somewhere in the background.

God! Did we learn nothing from banning alcohol in the States? Indeed, banning things may make them more attractive to a certain portion of the population.

So, sure, a gun for everyone. Put a peace-maker the grubby little paw of every new born. Then when we have a family dispute, we can make a clean sweep of the thing with out respect to socio-economic status, and Remington Arms can be a good investment for Dick Cheney. Duck!!!!

Answer 3

We banned illegal drugs. Does that mean that there are absolutely no drugs in the country now ?
We banned alcohol at one time. But anyone could get loaded on moonshine whenever he wanted to .
How do you propose taking guns away from those who would refuse to give them up ?
Do you suppose bank robbers would give up their guns because it would be against the law to have them ?
There is no point in making any law that can't be enforced.
During the time of the Romans, guns were far off in the future, but almost all the leaders were murdered. Thousands were murdered, but not with guns.
In my own experience, I personally know only two people who were murdered, both stabbed.

Answer 4

I don't like guns, but since the constitution gives us the right to have them. I say let them keep them. Democrats and Republicans talk about how much they will uphold the Constitution, and yet try to take are amendments away from us. No, guns should not be banned. No, guns should not be banned. No, guns should not be banned. Got it...good.

Answer 5

The entire fallacy behind your argument is the behavior of humans.

Law abiding citizens, by definition, obey the law. So if you outlawed firearms, the only folks who would obey the law are those who would not break it in the first place.

But criminals, by definition, are those who break the law. So if you outlaw guns, the "bad guys" won't care, and will retain their firearms becuase of the tremendous advantages they provide in forcing their victims to behave in a specific manner.

"So what", you might say. The Police can protect us, thus individuals have no need for protection, and don't need to be able to possess firearms. But, even the Supreme Court of the United States has declared that the Law Enforcement forces of the U.S. DO NOT have a responsibility to protect individuals. Police are only responsible for responding to crimes AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN COMMITTED. So, if you wish to protect yourself from crime -- to avoid being coerced into behaving in a manner you do not want by a firearm-bearing criminal -- you MUST be capable of protecting yourself from that criminal. And as the old adage goes, fight fire with fire, or (in this case) fight firearms with firearms.

Analysis of crime statistics around the world has shown repeatedly that, in areas where individuals are permitted to own and carry firearms, violent crime rates are LOWER. In areas where the general popluace are disarmed by gun bans, violent crime immediately skyrockets. While this may sound paradoxical, it isn't -- when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. And when only outlaws have guns, they can act with impunity.

Answer 6

well this is a touchy subject;we need tougher gun laws it wouldn't hurt to have a sphychological test before you are able to get a lic. to own a gun.but ,criminals will not give up weapons.so the 1st offense should be 10yrs. or longer if caught w/illegal weapon.i'm not worried about the responsible people out there,just the crazies who don't give a ---- about anyone,no respect for life.

Answer 7

to carcraz I love you girl, that deserves 10 points anytime, the 2nd amendment gives the people the right to own guns and every one should own some guns , every country that has been over run and put into slavery was forbidden to own guns , so think about that before you run your mouth,
The Gov, has found ways to gain control over the gun ownership, which is strictly unconstitutional, but, no one want to buck the gov, as so many other laws the gov has jurisdiction over now, , in our constitution the gov, has only jurisdiction over three things
first, interstate commerce, 2nd counterfeiting, 3rd espionage,
they say since guns are shipped across state lines that gives them jurisdiction, same with so many things now, each state was originally to be a independent country ,with the fed gov, only had limited jurisdiction, but now you see what they have done to the Americans, And our constitution

Answer 8

Not being a wiseguy here, but apply this logic to everything. People get run over and killed in the thousands every day. Ban cars? People choke on their dinner...ban dinner & food?

I own firearms, I also am trained in their use and know what is appropriate handling of them. I am responsible for my own actions as are you. This is the ultimate freedom and I believe in the view that people govern themselves most effectively. Even though there are some who do not, the majority do.

I voted against the lottery in Florida based on the exact wording of the amendment. But I also saw it as a "poor mans tax". I registered my opinion by my vote, but I don't condemn those who choose to play, I exercise my right NOT to play. You cannot legislate good sense.

Answer 9

Anyone with the mentallity that you speak of is unbalanced,and will find a way to make himself a problem for society,regardless of their ability to legally (or otherwise!) get a firearm.Law abiding folks need to be able to protect themselves from people like that.
History also teaches us that any government that would usurp the rights of the people to arm and defend themselves is also a government that would strip it's constituents of their other basic rights.
Maybe you don't care about your Second Ammendment right,but you should still guard it with all due dilligence! Because when they take that one away....it's just a matter of time before they start chipping away at the rest of them!

Answer 10

The problem isn't with gun ownership, its with clowns who buy guns and don't have the self control to only use them in a proper manner.

Banning guns just allows the bad guys to keep theirs and the innocents become the victims.