When will politicians wake up and realise that the amendment to bear arms was to allow a militia to be raised and to defeat the British invader in 1770 something. This no longer applies. How many more innocent lives have to be lost?
2007-04-16 14:07:26 · 22 answers · asked by GenetteS 3 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
When will you get your head out of the sand.... Bad guys will always have guns>>>> Laws don't stop the bad guy from getting them.
2007-04-16 14:11:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
Well, being allowed to bear arms is the right of US citizens, and as an Englishman I support that right. We have a total ban on handguns here, but gun crime is through the roof. The only effect on banning guns has been that the bad guys have them. If we all had a gun ,I am willing to bet that gun crime would drop. Think about it: Is it fair that the ordinary person cannot protect themselves. It's just a pity that some of those students who were killed didn't have a gun to shoot that killer.By the way tmnasn , Americans are not stupid.
Did you know that gun laws were only introduced into Britain in the 1920s because the government was becoming uneasy of the citizenry having arms which they may have used to overthrow them . They never said that though !
2007-04-16 14:40:37 · answer #2 · answered by Tracker 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
If he does a BAN it received't have plenty result notwithstanding it really is going to make gun shoppers a most suitable gross sales. many purchasers will be paying for uppers, elements doing trades etc.... that's what occurred in the course of the Clinton era. at the moment in u . s . a . all Gun MFG's cabinets are empty and they are generating at proper speeds to fill orders. Obama can no longer abolish guns/rifles because the 2d modification in Washington replaced into challenged and the Judges recent in want of the folk. Obama will do as plenty as he can notwithstanding the democrats in a lot of States and Districts are conservative and in the adventure that they vote for any of Obama's plans they're going to threat shedding the following election.
2016-12-04 03:58:56 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In Canada there are approximately 500 murders per year. The majority 90% are with knifes. If you took every gun away from everybody the murder rate would not change.
You live in a totally messed up society change that and the number of tragedies will fall.
I live in a messed up society that's the only difference between Canada and the USA.
2007-04-16 14:21:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Wait - the perpetrator was MALE, right? And so were the ones at Columbine... I have an idea -- let's ban all MALES from entering school grounds -- high school or colleges. That would have prevented this horrible event from occuring.
Let's call it another "MALE" tragedy instead of a gun tragedy ...
Logic? Who needs it!
2007-04-16 14:16:55 · answer #5 · answered by kelannde 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
A bit of something to read,
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
the 2nd Amendment preserves individual rights. Plan and simple without the 2nd amendment the right to speak freely, protect yourself or property from government intrusions wuld be a thing of the past. It is the last bastion to protect US citizens against the government that would if given the chance to tyrannize.
2007-04-16 14:14:44 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
I guess they didn't hunt in 1770, or fight indians, or protect themselves when the law was only 12 hours away.
2007-04-16 14:25:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
As the saying goes.... "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". There are many different types of weapons he could have chose. Knives, bombs, axes, Molotov cocktail, machete, jets, car bombs, anthrax laced envelopes, and so on and so on..... My point is that if he wanted to do massive damage he could use just about anything at hand.
2007-04-16 14:55:32 · answer #8 · answered by Bookworm4124 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Instead of a gun, this idiot would have used a bomb and killed 4 times as many as he did. And, it was a gun that ended this idiot's life. To use this tragedy to further your political agenda is not surprising considering your agenda.
They should have "locked down" the campus as well, right? Next murder in your city let's see how you respond when they keep you under "lock down"...be careful what you wish for.
2007-04-16 14:13:59 · answer #9 · answered by Griff 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋
The same debate came in the wake of the Columbine killings.
We'll see what happens this time I guess.
2007-04-16 14:10:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋