2007-02-24 05:24:48 · 11 answers · asked by Rob L 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No, we should not. First of all it is our 2nd amendment right to 'bare arms', what are they going to do next? Take away our freedom of speech?
Also, if you make owning a gun a crime than only the criminals will have guns. Then you have also lost your right to protect you, your family, and your possessions.
2007-02-24 05:34:06 · answer #1 · answered by me 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Assuming that you're asking this question as an American, I also predict that you'll receive a lot of strong opposition.
No, I don't believe we should ban guns, but not because it's protected under the Constitution. I don't think that's a relevant argument and besides, that doesn't make it right.
At this point, I'll exclude military and law enforcement personnel from this debate; they're much better trained and qualified to possess firearms than anyone else.
I think there should be more restrictions on who can own one and under what conditions. Nobody needs an assault weapon. Nobody but a hunter with a license needs a rifle. Nobody but a farmer needs a shotgun.
If you're a hunter or a farmer or fit one of these descriptions, by all means, fill out a permit and buy one (no, you don't need a dozen). Keep it unloaded and locked away until you plan to go out and participate in an activity in which you will fire the weapon.
"IF OWNING GUNS IS A CRIME, THEN ONLY CRIMINALS WILL HAVE GUNS!!!"
Smoking pot is a crime; are criminals the only ones toking up? Of course not; artists, musicians, CEOs, teachers, lawyers, politicians, doctors, college students, teenagers (pretty much every demographic group that ever existed) have all been known to puff the magic dragon. It's against the law (I won't get into whether or not it should be, actually it shouldn't be), but I certainly wouldn't consider them criminals for breaking it.
Tighter regulations also means cracking down on illegal trafficking of firearms, across both national and state borders. Wouldn't it be a lot safer if those entrusted with fighting crime were armed, but criminals weren't?
2007-02-24 06:05:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would be great. When we ban all the guns then all the criminals that were going to shoot your family will turn them in because it would be illegal to own them. Wait that don't make sense.
2007-02-28 05:31:07 · answer #3 · answered by jw1269 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The right to have guns is protected by the second amendment of the United States constitution. It is a constitutional right.
2007-02-24 05:32:56 · answer #4 · answered by Kikyo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No we shouldnt! because then only criminals would have guns!
who is going to help you then?
u are a moronic
2007-02-24 05:29:05 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
guns kill people, baseball bats kills people, steak knives kill people, steel pipes kill people, bare hands kill people. sure, let's ban guns and anything else that can be used to kill someone. A gun is designed to shoot a projectile, it doesn't have the ability to determine what it shoots it at. There will always be crime wether or not a gun is involved.
2007-02-24 05:38:20 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. Maybe we should ban doctors since they actually kill people and an inanimate object can't violate the rules of physics and kill anything.
2007-02-24 19:13:21 · answer #7 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
HELL NO....what's wrong with you...
DO you really want the only people in our country to have guns to be the criminals....
NO WAY....
When they do that I will become a criminal as I will keep mine!
2007-02-24 05:30:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Even if you did how would you plan to confiscate them.
2007-02-24 11:42:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why?
2007-02-24 05:29:39 · answer #10 · answered by Dr. NG 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋