2007-03-17 09:52:34 · 14 answers · asked by roy troy 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Just e-mail me your address. I will be happy to send you a "No Guns In This House" sticker to put on your mailbox and front door. That way the predators will know which home to invade without worrying about the danger of resistance.
2007-03-17 10:04:39 · answer #1 · answered by John H 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. A law like that would be unconstitutional. But then again, that hasn't stopped them so far...just look at the (un)Patriot(ic) Act.
That being said, I have never had a need for a gun. I go target shooting sometimes, but I just use my friends' guns. However, I like having the option to own one, should I ever find the need. I have a baseball bat, a hatchet, and a mag light under the bed. In my car I have my tool set, including another mag light, and my geology pick-hammer. So far, I've never even had to use that stuff, so I doubt I'll buy a gun.
2007-03-17 10:01:52 · answer #2 · answered by The Man In The Box 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms or activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right
facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."
Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia, (Case No. 04-7041), (decided March 9, 2007)
2007-03-17 10:10:15 · answer #3 · answered by tj 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I live in a unincorperated area and we have no local police. So if I need the police I have to call the state police and it can take hours for them to respond. You better believe I keep a gun in my house for protection. No one else is going to save me.
Also everyone hunts around here.
Guns are not the problem idiots are.
2007-03-17 10:55:55 · answer #4 · answered by FX_Make-upArtist 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Any law abiding and responsible citizen has the right, and should have the right, to own firearms. The most important thing is to be safe.
2007-03-17 11:48:58 · answer #5 · answered by EB 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Second Amendment might have something to say about that.
2007-03-17 09:59:18 · answer #6 · answered by Sgt 524 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
I don't believe I need to explain further, unless you want to argue that it should be illegal to keep writing implements and paper in your home as well.
2007-03-17 10:00:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
No. That violates the second amendment and is anti-American
2007-03-17 10:04:16 · answer #8 · answered by NFrancis 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No as long as they have locks on them and then are locked up and away from children.
2007-03-17 10:01:06 · answer #9 · answered by Cindy Roo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm all for taking them with you to work.
2007-03-17 17:18:48 · answer #10 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋