The argument that limiting our "right to bear arms" takes away our constitutional rights and allows the government to run roughshod over the citizenry is fallacious. We have been limiting the amount and type of arms the general public can own since 1945 when the atom bomb was invented, perhaps before that with so many states outlawing tommy guns. The right of the citizenry to insist that manufacture and sale to the general public of certain arms should be illegal is just as important as the right to bear arms. Agree or disagree.
2007-04-16 07:52:31 · 5 answers · asked by Foundryman 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
As you all know every time this question comes up we are basically agreed that limits on certain arms are OK. And I agree with you today-----with reservations. As each new and improved gun control law comes in , we are asked to compromise , and we do but in the end we have compromised ourselves right out of existance.The faster you compromise the faster you will not be hunting, competition shooting, protecting yourselves and family.To all who desire feedom and rights, Stand tall, Stand strong.
2007-04-16 08:13:29 · answer #1 · answered by reinformer 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think we should limit the right to bear arms (interpreting arms to mean guns not missiles) at all. I feel that if someone wants to have an automatic weapon, they should have the right. Not all gun enthusiasts are hunters and should have the right to own the guns they are interested in. Shooting an automatic weapon is fun. Shooting a 50 caliber is fun. No I am not going to take it into the woods and hunt deer with it, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to own it.
I realize that "arms" does include grenades, bombs, missiles and various other weapons so I guess I have to agree that the government should have the right to regulate some arms, but in general I feel the public should have the right to own whatever they want.
2007-04-16 08:07:33 · answer #2 · answered by hattiefrederick 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The right to bear arms is so outdated and so stupid. Why? Exactly why do ordinary people have to have a gun.. really?
It is too late now for the U.S. Everybody has a gun.. and the number of killings like this one is just increasing. So many other civilized countries do not have this law and yet have so much less death this way.
Why is it we are so stupid and stubborn and think that there are not going to be any crazies who fly off the handle and do these kinds of things.
We have no one to blame for these tragedies but ourselves and our government for feeling that all Americans need a gun.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.... apparently we are too stupid to learn by our mistakes.
2007-04-16 08:05:23 · answer #3 · answered by Debra H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, if you want to look at the first instances of limiting ownership of arms, do a search on the Sullivan Laws, which were intended to keep specific minorities from having access to weapons.
I'm sorry to inform you, but the "citizenry" has no right to insist that the rights of other citizens be curtailed.
2007-04-16 08:03:13 · answer #4 · answered by open4one 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If guns kill, then matches cause arson, women cause rape, cars cause DUI, pencils cause misspelling and children are responsible for being molested.
People bad, not inanimate objects
2007-04-17 15:11:59 · answer #5 · answered by Eldude 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋