America is so thick not banning guns does anyone disagree?

Answer 1

When referring to the Second Amendment will the people of the USA please quote the WHOLE section... not just the bit that suites them.

Something in there refers to STATE MILITIA..
...This means that the ONLY time a private individual is permitted to be armed is when the STATE is under attack and ONLY then as a part of a well organised force.
..This DOES NOT mean private individuals are permitted to bear arms at all times.
Private citizens of the USA have NO right to bear arms.
Also, this amendment , when written, refered to flint lock muskets...not semi automatics.

The weapons should be banned, too many loonies can get their hands on them too easily.

Answer 2

You liberals are so intent on saving the human race from itself that whenever something like this happens all you can think is BAN BAN BAN. Here's what you are up against: There are over 6.5 billion different individuals on the earth. In order to accomplish what you would perceive to be a perfect world you will have to convince each and every one of those 6.5 billion plus individuals that your way of life is the best way and they should live their life under your rules and raise all future generations in this fashion as well. This would include the following:
They can only eat government approved food, as to not get fat.
They are not allowed to have anything that their neighbor doesn't have because that would be psychologically damaging the neighbor.
There would be no more sporting events, or if there were they would only be allowed to end in ties. (Sorry NASCAR fans, 43 cars can't cross the finish line at the same time so we're out of luck).
You are not allowed to protect yourself, if you are threatened just fall down and assume the fetal position and hope for the best.
I'm sure you can come up with plenty more laws to live by in the Liberal Perfect World, but you get the idea.
That's a lot of work for you to do so you better get off that chair and get busy.

Answer 3

Forgive me, but the first (replying) poster here seems to be missing something...

Yeah, banning guns in the US will only stop the law-abiding folk from (legally) obtaining them. Wasn't the guy who just killed all those people a law-abiding citizen until he did what he did?

I think stopping people like him getting his hands on a gun is a GOOD thing, no?

Neither the US or any other country need guns. Simple as that. So many gun-related killings are the result of a person acting out of character or emotionally. Had they NOT had a gun they very likely would not have killed; guns simply provide a very easy way of venting rage that might otherwise be dealt with over time, or at least without the killing of tens of people. It amazes me that America, a country so strict with so many other laws and telling people what they can and can't do is so lenient on its gun policies. The American government try to play the peace-keeper and have this 'holier-than-thou' attitude, marching into other countries to 'solve' their problems for them, when all the while their primitive laws smack of nothing but ignorance and dark-age thinking. Utter madness. More like bullying than peace-keeping, in my opinion.

Answer 4

It may make people feel good to think that they can ban guns, this is of course an exercise in futility. Do you propose going door to door with a gang of federal agents who will search each and every American home? Do you think that given our inability to stop drugs from coming into the country, guns won't get here the same way? Do you think that any skilled machinist won't be able to make a gun? Do you think that a criminal intent on killing people will obey any gun ban imposed? Your question is an example of liberal stupidity. Prohibition has never worked. Human nature will not allow it to. Then again liberalism is contrary to human nature and therefore doomed to fail.

Answer 5

Instead of saying that we should to ban guns, why don't we encourage more responsible people to take classes and earn a concealed weapons permit? I submit that if there were more responsible people carrying firearms, crime, of all types, would drop substantially.

Imagine if one in every fifteen people carried a concealed weapon. Consider what the outcome of the Virginia Tech massacre could have been if just two of those students were carrying a firearm.

All crime would go down! If one in every fifteen people carried a fire arm, all criminals would think twice before committing a crime. Consider the rapist, or the thief, who knows that there is a one in fifteen chance that his/her victim is carrying a gun.

Look at the States with the lowest crime rates vs. percentage of gun ownership. Being from Utah about 80 percent, or more, of my neighbors own at least one firearm. There has not been a robbery in my neighborhood in years.

When reflecting on the Virginia Tech massacre I was suddenly very grateful to know that one of my close friends carries a concealed weapon.

It is not a matter of being macho, or tough. It is a matter of being able to protect oneself in case of a crisis. It is for events like the Virginia Tech massacre that the second amendment was written. We as a people must be able to protect ourselves when something like this happens. Taking away our guns WILL NOT help.

Answer 6

I disagree. There is much rhetoric i could quote and toss your way. But then end result are just a single simple concepts.

1. Outlawing guns means only outlaws will have them.

Answer 7

I must definitely disagree with you.

As said before;

Guns don't kill people - people kill people.

The Government should enforce the murder laws already on the books, instead of shyster Lawyers getting people out of accepting responsibility because of childhood events.

Enforce the laws.

Make people responsible for their actions.

Make murder crimes mandatory life sentences without chance of parole.

Answer 8

Its moronic tothink that banning guns @ this point would actually work. Not to mention it is a Right.

Answer 9

I disagree, if we want to save a lot of lives, we should start by banning cars.

Approximately 123 people died in car wrecks in the U.S. yesterday (and a similar number today, tomorrow, and every day of the year), gun deaths are not our biggest problem when it comes to the chance of being killed by someone else in the U.S. today. You are three times as likely to die in a car wreck than to be shot (by someone else*) in the U.S., if we want to save lives, let's start with the biggest problem first.

The chances of being randomly killed by a gun weilding stranger is very low and can be lowered by avoiding certain areas and activities (high crime areas and criminal activities). Car deaths are totally random and there is no way to avoid them, you are just as likely to get killed on the Washington Beltway in Bethesda or Fairfax (two very affluent areas) as you are driving on 95 through the less affluent areas of Philadelphia. Furthermore, the majority of gun killings are done by relatives, crimes of passion, which can be done with bats, knives, poison, etc.

*1/2 of all gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides (and 1/2 of all suicides are from guns). I don't think it's fair to count these as "gun deaths" since many of these poor souls would likely find some other way to kill themselves if we took away their guns.

Answer 10

nice idea - but how do you think an amnesty would be implemented? What do you think would be the consequences during the transition period. Unfortunately, incidents like this do have a positive effect as they can help to change peoples attitudes towards guns