GUN CONTROl?

Question

we were debating in class about gun control and stuff and the opposing time asked how taking guns away was going to effect us like how the 18th amendment did

how should i respond to her response?

im on the side that thinks there should be some type of ban on certain types of guns

i truly believe that alcohol and guns are very different but if we take away guns like we took away alcohol

She asked how this gun control will effect america like the ban on alcohol

whoever answered that gun control is bad u can suck my balls

and that wasnt the ***** question i was asking fukers

Answer 1

Guns shouldn't just be given to any redneck who wants it, they should go through a long process to get it.

Answer 2

There is no argument for gun control. Gun control being implemented in schools caused school shootings. After all, if you're gonna commit a random crime and one house has a gun-free zone sign outside, isn't that the house you'd pick? A nation without gun control has little need for any defense. Could you imagine an army invading Switzerland? After all, that's why the British were defeated by the Minutemen and that's why we lost in Vietnam.

Gun control leads to dictatorship. Hitler took all the guns from the Germans and then nobody could do anything when he went on a murdering rampage. If you hand over guns to the government, you're paving the way for the United Nations to take away our soverignty as it has long wanted. Our president is actively trying to merge America into Canada and Mexico (SPP or the North American Union; its reported about frequently on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight).

Answer 3

for the record, I'm pro-second amendment, now to play devils advocate for you.

the response on this would be rather simple. she is using an amendment born of the 19th century morality laws that where in place then. the 18th amendment was made to reduce the immoral act of consumption of spirits because it promoted prostitution, gambling, and loud routy behavior. back in the 19th century this was comletly unaceptable. with gun control on the other hand it would be a matter of protection of the common man from the fear of violence or being the innocent bystander who gets shot on the street. it is not a question of morality as much as it is a question of security. by taking guns away from everyone on the street it would also remove the need for police to all carry weapons and thus making the use of deadly force a truly last resort. that is a response in a nutshell. think it over and build off it.

good luck

Answer 4

Guns are just an easy way to kill. I personally hold more respect for murderers who kill with their bare hands or knives; at least they are willing to get their hands dirty. However, I also believe in a level playing field. If somebody is going to shoot at me, I think I should be allowed to shoot back.

Where do we draw the line? Will the military have to give up thier automatic firearms? How will we defend our nation against those that keep their weapons? More importantly, how do we protect ourselves from opressive government? That is what the 2nd Amendment is really about. It is a reminder to everyone how our nation was born and a warning to the government to who grants them power.

Hunting can be done with bows and crossbows. It is more challenging that way due to the time required to shoot a second time.

Answer 5

The proof of the pudding is that
in the countries, like Norway,
which have Gun Control the shootings per capita are 10% of those in the USA.
However, killings by means of
a Knife are way up.
Therefore, Gun Control is very bad for Gun Manufacturers and very good for the makers of good sharp Knives.

Answer 6

I cannot believe that you or anyone else would support gun control. Do you not understand that it is the way of man to seek power and control? Taking guns away from people leaves them without any chance to protect themselves and their family from those who so seek power and control. This truth has been confirmed throughout history.

I do not see how so many people think that America is magically immune from attacks on individual freedoms. So sad that people are so willing to hand over their constitutional rights, so the gov't will "protect them."

Answer 7

I would LOVE to be able to witness a return of our Founding Fathers (writers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and soldiers in the effort to secure and sustain those principles) and hear what they have to say about the "State of Affairs" in the country they fought and died for.

What has happened to American minds? Guns do NOT kill people. People kill people. Government(s) cannot be trusted to protect people. Have we not learned anything over the past thousands of years?

People protect people. Governments can only do so much. In the end, we protect each other - with the right to be armed.

NEVER give up your right to Free Speech, but also ...NEVER give up your right to self defense ...the right to be armed.

IF the government attempts to outlaw arms, the people of this country will find a way to remain ...armed and protected. The only change will be the price everyone has to pay for that protection.

If anyone believes otherwise ...Only God can protect you. Maybe He will, but sometimes I think God says "What? Are you so stupid? Fight for your rights and your life! You expect Me to do EVERYTHING! ?

Answer 8

Well the constitution does specially state within the second amendment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmentii
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/infringe
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/shall
Its pretty clear why our founding brethren in fact wrote it this way, meaning hands off completely, "cannot"(shall not) be Infringed(trespassed upon) NO TRESPASSING PERIOD. Its a solid(can't be touched) safety buffer built in for the ppl. Why? Just look at the constitution and you will plainly see the serious distrust our founding brethren had for government. They knew that some day the government would(not could)turn against its people. This in fact is "self evident" sir.

I hope the information i have shared helps you and her with this dilemma.

Answer 9

I personally believe that people should have the right to bear arms.
However, if you were for gun control, I suppose you could say that you can't compare the prohibition of alcohol and the prohibition of guns. Alcohol at worst would cause drunkenness and maybe some fist fights. Guns kill people. The punishment for alcohol would be a slap on the wrist for possession. With arms, you could face years in prison. Mention the high crime rates right now, as well.

Answer 10

Gun control means hitting what you aim at.

Answer 11

I'm confused? first of all, what is your position on the issue?