Do you believe the government should take away the guns of every citizen?

Question

So far I think dakota has given the best answer. I agree with you 100% dakota. The only thing a government fears is an armed intelligent population. So we should remain armed and gain as much intelligence as we possibly can.

Answer 1

NO! The right to keep arms is in place to protect us from a corrupt Government.
Hitler took the guns from the people before they saw how dangerous he was.

Answer 2

If they could, who would defend us against a bad government or criminals. Whereas they could maybe take all the legal guns from the innocent people, or people with no criminal motives, how could they take the illegal weapons from criminals?

It seems that the police aren't exactly 100% effective against crime. It begs the question of why we aren't allowed to defend ourselves, if the police can't.

Maybe the government has other reasons for disarming the population, maybe it's fear.

I have 2 kids, live in the country, with no work, on $155. /month and I can't even hunt for food.
Yet MY politician just voted himself a HUGE pay raise, and is now in the plus $100,000 bracket.

I see millions of dollars going out of my country, dollars that I NEED, and can't access. It's great for the politician's EGO, giving away OUR resources, and the media eat it up for the photo op.

So, maybe the government has an ulterior motive for disarming people.

If everyone were armed, who would want to rob you?

In Switzerland, where every citizen is a member of the army reserve, and each household is armed, break and enter is non-existent!

Answer 3

No, I don't think any government should take guns away from their citizens. People, who want to do harm, will find a way to buy arms anyway. Therefore, law abiding citizens would be unprotected from government and bandits.

Personally, I don't like guns. Actually, I hate guns. However, in America, it's our Constitutional right to have fire arms and it's just one of the reasons that has made our free society great.

Answer 4

The question you asked is why the U. S. government won't ban gun possession. it is not a query of an outright ban. that may no longer going to take place as long as that's seen as a constitutional top. The extra real looking question is what are the right limits. The anti-gun lobby acknowledges that the floodgates are opened or maybe an outright ban could merely get rid of weapons from the palms of fairly regulation-abiding people, no longer people who intend to apply them to do ill. nevertheless, reducing get admission to must be a solid element, they suspect. the pro-gun camp says they desire the weapons to guard themselves from stated factors who intend to do incorrect. i think of the real looking answer is on limiting computerized, semi-automatics, huge clips, etc. Few who hunt use hand-grenades and Howitzers to do it, and maximum be conscious of that having hand-grenades unprotected in a house with babies is silly and welcoming disaster. the final analysis is that the "US government" can no longer do something that the U. S. people won't do for themselves. government of the individuals and by employing the individuals, in spite of each and every thing.

Answer 5

It is our Constitutional right to keep and bear firearms. I like the idea of having them issued by a central organization (not the govt - becuse they would screw that up too). The NRA would not be allowed to run it either. This organization would do only this and not have other interests. It would be supported by partial funding from the govt and fees from the applications submitted. They would do background checks etc. If a crime - proven by law enforcement - is committed by an "approved" person using a firearm, they would immediately go to prision...they would waive their right to the judicial process when they apply for the issued weapon saving the govt and taxpayers millions of dollars. If found to be accidental - they would simply loose the weapon - also agreed to during the application process. No one could trade weapons without approval. There would be yearly inventories/inspection of weapons. Classes would teach people how to use them correctly and legally for the safety of all. People can keep and bear arms, but we need to all cooperate and get a better handle on this out of control situation.

Answer 6

Governments have done so in the past...the Nazis of Germany, the Soviets of Russia, Mussolini's Italy, Communist China...and all have killed more of their own citizens than all handgun murders and accidents combined. Clearly, there needs to be gun control (like registration, firearm safety certification, trigger locks, limitations on how many can be owned by an individual, and much stricter requirements on how to obtain a firearm) but a completely unarmed citizenry is at the mercy of both the government and criminals.

Answer 7

Yes. Ha. Ha. No, of course not. Though I'd just as easily say no to the question "Should every adult in this country be able to get a gun?" Hunters, policemen, collectors, and people who live in the dessert with a bunch of coyotes, wolves, and bears should by all means get a gun. People shouldn't buy a gun for self defense unless they're sure they can use it and use it properly.

Answer 8

No, nor will it ever happen.

Adding more restriction to the already heavily restricted issue of firearms is a waste of time and money.

How about having our elected officials start looking at ways to keep guns out of the hands of criminals instead of infringing of the rights of honest citizens???

Answer 9

You mean like they wanted to in Canada?
Or how about in pre-WWII Germany? Remember what happened next?
Mussolini's Italy?
Stalin's Russia?
Saddam's Iraq?

Good luck finding a historical example of where gun confiscation worked (for the betterment of society)

Answer 10

I don't have a gun, but I have a constititional right to have one if I want.

No, the goverment should NOT take away our constitional rights!

This is the U.S. of A., it would not be anymore if our fundemental rights were removed.

Besides, with the libers taking power we very well may end up having to personly defend ourselves against a terrorist invasion.