I agree with hendo, I should be able to defend my family and property with what ever means available or necessary. I don't think people should carry guns in public, but for home protection, absolutely. As far as I'm concerned, the moment someone breaks and enters into someones house, they are invading someone else's rights and liberties, therefore their rights are automatically forfiet. Break into my house, be prepared to die, because you can still own a shotgun in the UK, and at close range, that is far more devistating than a .38.
2006-12-20 19:00:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
2 months ago i didnt see any sence in it , you had the shootings in that school and it seemed pointless to have guns available to the many .but when you look into it you have an ammendment that says you have the right to bare arms.
the patriots act has already made half the constitution null and void , at the moment theres being alot of attacks on different parts of the constitution and this is very dangerous ,the rights of the people of america are being slowly and incrementally taken away , there trying to do this here and have succeeded in some areas .freedom of speech is being attacked at the moment still under the title "the war on terror".
i feel its important you should keep the right to bare arms and protect yourself especially if/when they create another false flag event and impose martial law on the American people , then the people that disagree with the government (the people that have been documented and the people that speakout) will be locked up in the 800 FEMA camps that have been built all over the states that can hold 20,000 people each ,sadly all in plain view yet hopefully people will wake up and it wont get to that.
if you look past the propaganda its quite odvious the forefathers had the right ideas and were not watered down human beings like us ,they created the bill of rights for a reason and to burn it like is being done now in plain view is a disgrace and will only end in enslavement on a world wide scale this is not a hate america speech like you guys have been brain washed to think ,because this is happening world wide yet america is where if it does will kick off,conspiracy theory ? sadly quite the oposite .heres a link http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=786048453686176230&q=terrorstorm to a docu/film i wouldnt say agree with all of it but watch it with an open mind and try and do a little reasearch on what you dont agree with.
"for people to give away necessary libertys for temporary securitys deserve neither liberty nor security." Benjamin Franklin.
2006-12-20 09:50:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
In Jacobean times it was common for all fashionable European men to carry a sword. Just about every member of the population carried a weapon. This was an accepted norm. However, times changed and it is now an offence to carry a weapon. I do not see how the US constitution - which was written 300 years ago, in a completely different time, in a completely different set of circumstances - and let's face it, practically in a different country (native americans, east coast/west coast, not much in between etc), how this protecting guns is now relevant in today's society. You do not need to carry a sub machine gun down the street to protect yourself from banditos.
I appreciate that only people who obey the law will get rid of their guns, and that the criminals will keep theirs. However, criminals will always have guns - they have them in countries (like the UK) where owning any gun other than a shotgun is illegal. This does NOT mean that British citizens should start arming themselves, because then the criminals will see a gun, panic, and kill them. Having weapons SERIOUSLY ups the ante in any situation.
Having the right to own a minigun and have a flak gun in your back yard taken away is not "restriction of rights" - at least the rights that any normal human being needs, it's just being sensible. In Canada you have to at least pass SOME sort of sanity test in order to buy a gun - and you are more likely to kill YOURSELF with a gun than someone else there. You'll probably never get rid of guns completely in the US - the US was founded on the things - but you can introduce at least modestly strict controls can't you?
2006-12-20 08:44:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mordent 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Gun laws in the US seem like a form of madness, especially whenever a US school shooting is reported in Britain. The initial idea of enabling militias to be armed seems to have mutated into the right for anyone and everyone to own a gun
Whilst I understand the need for such arrangements in rural areas, where the law may be many miles away, it makes no sense to allow anyone to carry concealed weapons in cities. It just ups the ante in any confrontation and a much larger number of gun related deaths are the result
2006-12-21 09:33:00
·
answer #4
·
answered by mnaagar 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it's more the Americans attitude to gun ownership than the laws. But the attitude is probably reflective of the laws.
It is a worrying looking at the statastics considering Amercian is the leader by miles for shooting each other.
I think in Canada per person there are more guns than in America but the Canadians manage not to kill each other in record numbers.
2006-12-20 09:14:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I believe that everyone should have the right to protect their family and property from any potential threat, I also believe that Tony Martin was correct in his action of shooting a burglar, but I draw the line at allowing the carrying of guns in public by the public, although I do believe that our police should be fully armed.
2006-12-20 08:45:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by Hendo 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
First I will confess to being English and married to a Texan. I have visited Texas and gun loving relatives and so this will reflect my view point.
Its culturally strange, weird and alien to us Brits.
Culturally it is generally more normal to have guns around for recreational hunting in the States, for which personally if the kill is eaten, I have no problem with.
However my over arching view is the the carring of hand guns for protection of persons or property based on fear of attack is counter productive, as this feeds fear which breeds fear, and therefore creates an escalating cycle of fear.
It doesent matter who started it or who the aggressor is, what matters is who is going to stop the cycle of fear, violence and intimidation, who is man enough too?
The question for me is not one of rights but of responsibilities.
2006-12-20 08:53:40
·
answer #7
·
answered by stringbeanscoffee 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
I personally think it's time you changed your constitution.
You no longer live in the wild west and should not have the right to bear arms. The more guns in a society then the more chance people will be killed by them.
If i had a gun in the house it would be a cause to be scared NOT to feel safe.
2006-12-20 08:47:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
There is not one study, not one. That suggest if guns were illegal suddenly there would be criminals shooting everyone.
Most westernized country have strict gun control laws, and most of them have extremely lower percentage of gun related deaths than the US.
America has one of the looses gun control policies in the industrialized world and we have the most gun deaths, do people not think they are connected.
2006-12-20 08:39:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by The Teacher 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
What does the British views matter one way or the other? it's not like we are going to change anything.
2006-12-20 08:34:53
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋