Do you want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military?

Question

Are we safer with an armed or dis-armed public?

"Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State." – Heinrich Himmler

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily lives, and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom." -- John F. Kennedy

Answer 1

The answer to society's problems is not to take our guns away. Next we won't be allowed to buy Knives. All meat will be sold pre-cut. Veggies will have to be processed in a food processor that the blade is not removable, eventually at the store then packaged. It is stupid. What about baseball bats and Q sticks? Maybe the base ball bat should have to be signed out with Identification and the Q stick, well surely there is a material they can make that out of that on impact it will simply break easy enough. Every one should have to wear a helmet and body pads. Protect us if we make it past the abortion phase.

It is all about "Control." Has nothing to do with the well fair of people in this Country. The laws are to suppress. Wake up America. Don't be so blind as to think that taking freedoms away from you I and will ever resolve the crime in this Country. This has been the agenda over the past 50 years or more and the crime rate is greater now then it was and man is more creative and more aggressive today with creative ways of violating each other as time passes.

BUT the government holds steady on its course. Because it isn't looking to eliminate or protect but to control and benefit for self preservation. The government doesn't give a damn about you. Wake up.

What you should be looking for is LESS GOVERNMENT LESS LAWS MORE FREEDOMS FOR YOU AND I.

Answer 2

This is an argument that will still be going on a hundred years from now. Some have turned it into an issue between the political parties but the truth of the matter is that its just as much pro and con within the parties as there is between them. I'm a liberal leaning independent and I would prefer to keep my shotgun, my 22 cal varmint rifle and a 38 pistol. I don't have these weapons to fight imaginary enemies in the streets, these guns I use against animals for sport, out in the woods and fields.
I have the 38 for use against any animal that wants to break down my doors or smash in my windows to harm my family I would not want to give up these weapons but I would have no use for an M-16 or an AK47 nor do I need rocket launchers or any other of the type weapons used by an army to fight a full scale war. I leave that up to the army and the marines, they're trained for that. I just feel it's a matter of common sense what weapons should be available to the public and what gets into the hands of the criminals should be a matter for the police.

Answer 3

Look back through history and you will often find that the single largest danger to any people are their government. Start in the last part of the 19th century with the Ottoman Empire and then go and have a look at Hitler and then Stalin and then Poi,(Cambodia). Their governments disarmed the populations and the proceeded to kill millions of their own people.

Governments are far more dangerous in terms of killing than any criminal abuse of guns. I would never, never live under a government that denied my the right of owning firearms.

In terms of personal self defense, do you realize that the police have no legal obligation to protect you? Do you realize that YOU are the one responsible for your own safety and no one else? Do you have the backbone to take that responsibility or would you prefer to be a coward? We have too many cowards in this country as it is. That's one of the reasons we have the crime that we do because we won't stand up to the criminal element. Either in the courts or in our own streets and homes.

Now the cowards are demanding that we cut and run in the war on terror. They want us to bury our head in the sand and just hope that the terrorist go away. When we pull out of Iraq under the cowards terms the terrorist will know us as having no backbone and it will be only a matter of time before they feel secure in attacking us again. I strongly belive that we will have another 9/11 type attack with horrendous loss of life because we have become a nation of cowards.

Answer 4

I want a society that you can have gun(s) if you do not have a police record and are of legal age like the age to vote. Also you must be responsible for the storage and keeping of these guns so the children get hold them.
If criminals thought that people might be packing a gun there would be less car jacking, homes burgalized, and robbery of banks and stores. Even sky jacking would be reduced.
We Americans should all have the right to bear arms and defend our familiels. Our country was founded on GUNS GUTS AND ?

Answer 5

We are much safer with an armed public.

The 2nd Amendment is there to protect the rest of the Bill of Rights. The founding fathers knew that without it, the government could take those rights away at will.

Why do you think it comes 2nd only behind the freedom of speech and assembly?

Answer 6

Definitely armed! It is in the constitution that We the People have the Right to Bare arms! Smart fore-thinking on the part of our fore-father's! They knew exactly what it was like for their own government to rule, and abuse them when a family had no weapons to defend themselves against tyranny, and wrong doing. It was do as we tell you, or we're going to shoot you dead! That is the reason they put down the law in PLAIN English, that the citizen's shall always be allowed to own guns, not to get the bad rapist, or thief that broke into their homes to commit crimes, or even to hunt. No, they gave us the right, and the means to fight against the government, with those weapons. That is the exact reason they made it a constitutional right, but the democratic government doesn't want us to continue to have that right anymore. The liberals can't wait for us to disagree with having that right, so they can bust our doors down, and MAKE us be ruled by their commie tactic's. That is what Liberals are, they just used a different name to confuse the people, and sorry to say, but they've done a good job of it. We Republicans will not let them undermine the good old USA, though. We cannot let them take the Right to Bare Arms away from We the People!

Answer 7

Switzerland: The country with the lowest violent crime rate in the free world

Switzerland: The only first-world country where citizens aged 19 and older are REQUIRED to own guns

(at age 19, every Swiss citizen must enroll in the armed forces for one year and must undergo training on the responsibility and privilege of firearm users. They are issued a gun and required to keep it, or a different one, for their entire lives)

Switzerland: has NEVER fought a war

Case in point. We MUST have the right to bear arms as a country. If not, then those who illegally smuggle them can exercise force over law-abiding citizens who don't own guns.

Answer 8

That's a bogus quote you have: "This year* will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" - falsely attributed to Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), "Abschied vom Hessenland!" ["Farewell to Hessia!"], ['Berlin Daily' (Loose English Translation)], April 15th, 1935, Page 3 Article 2, Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann [Introduction by Eberhard Beckmann] [This quotation, often seen without any date or citation at all, suffers from several credibility problems, the most significant of which is that the date given (*in alternate versions, the words "This year..." are replaced by "1935...") has no correlation with any legislative effort by the Nazis for gun registration, nor would there have been a need for the Nazis to pass such a law, since gun registration laws passed by the Weimar government (in part to address street violence between Nazis and Communists!) were already in effect. The Nazi Weapons Law (or_Waffengesetz_) which further restricted the possession of militarily useful weapons and forbade trade in weapons without a government-issued license was passed on March 18, 1938. The citation usually given for this quote is a jumbled mess, and has only three major clues from which to work. The first is the date, which does not correspond (even approximately) to a date on which Hitler made a public speech, and a check of the texts of Hitler's speeches does not reveal a quotation resembling this (which is easily understandable when you realize that "Hitler" is commenting on a non-existent law). The second clue is the newspaper reference, which if translated into German resembles the title of a newspaper called _Berliner Tageblatt,_ and a check of the issue for that date reveals that the page and column references given are to the arts and culture page! No Hitler speech appears in the pages of_Berliner Tageblatt_on that date, or dates close to it, because there was no such speech to report. Finally, the citation includes a proper name "Eberhard Beckmann," which is sometimes cited as "by Einleitung Von Eberhard Beckmann," which is an important clue itself, because it reveals that the citation was fabricated by someone who had so little knowledge of the German language that they were unaware that "Einleitung" isn't the fellow's first name! The only "Eberhard Beckmann" which has been uncovered thus far did indeed write introductions, but he was a journalist for a German broadcasting company after WWII, and he wrote several introductions to_photography books,_ one of which was photos of the German state of Hesse (or Hessia), which may be the source of the curious phrase "Abschied vom Hessenland!" which appears in the citation. This quotation, however effective it may be as propaganda, is a fraud.] The following is valid: "Der groBte Unsinn, den man in den besetzen Ostgebieten machen konne, sei der, den unterworfenen Volkern Waffen zu geben. Die Geschicte lehre, daB alle Herrenvolker untergegangen seien, nachdem sie den von ihnen unterworfenen Volkern Waffen bewilligt hatten." [The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.] - Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in _Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942,_[Hitler's Table-Talk at the Fuhrer's Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951) [This quotation also appears in a slightly different (and, I've been told, less accurate) English translation in the book_Hitler's Secret Conversations_(Farrar, Straus and Young, 1953). The original source is notes taken by Hitler associate Martin Bormann, a document called _Bormann-Vermerke.

Answer 9

I personally despise guns and what they do, however we, as Americans, could do well to quit trying to always come up with something new, and instead analyse what has been done in other countries. Canada and Japan for instance. Both have very strict gun ownership laws. Has this decreased their homicide rate? No!!! Canada leads the world in deaths by bludgeoning, and Japan leads the world in deaths from swords. If we want to kill someone we'll do it in whatever way suits us best. Availability of firearms is not a determining factor.

Answer 10

Who amongst us has recently been out in the streets using our guns against the government or any other outside force? I'm not against owning a gun or several guns, I just think the reasons people state are ridiculous examples of the reason to own weapons. If a state of emergency broke out, my guess, if people were running around in the streets with weapons, innocent people would be getting shot. Look at New Orleans after Katrina. There were several reports of shots being fired and people had no clue as to who was doing the shooting or what or who was being shot. I can see using a weapon to defend your home or family but not many other reasons to actually use a weapon.