I agree, shotguns and rifles should still be allowed for hunting and self defense, but handguns and automatics are specifically designed to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
If that kid in Virginia only had access to a shotgun, there would be no way he could of killed as many as he did. Not a chance.
2007-04-18 02:03:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by truthspeaker10 4
·
0⤊
13⤋
So perhaps law abiding citizens should only carry guns that take 3 to 20 seconds to load, while criminals carry all the automatic weapons.
Had VTech not had a campus gun ban, the students would have been able to take that crazy fvcker out. But instead they were left defenseless.
Note that the 2nd amendment was also written at a time when citizens carried the same exact type of weapons as the military at the time. So if you what to go there with your framers' intent argument, one could also argue that we should be allowed to carry AK47s
........
2007-04-18 02:04:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by ladykofnyc 3
·
7⤊
0⤋
Think about it. If guns cause these massacres they would be happening every other day not 8 years apart. The 2nd amendment was meant so the population could protect themselves from the government. Your lovely draconian guns laws were in effect in Germany back in the 30's even before Hitler came to power. Thats why the poor Jews were slaughtered on Kristallnact, they had no way to arm themselves!
But I get it. Weak people fear guns like they do motorcycles. Plus they are phallic shaped so you liberal women see it as part of male oppession. But please don't let stop you from enjoying your looney religion of liberalism.
2007-04-18 02:16:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 2
·
4⤊
0⤋
The 1st amendment was created in a time when one person couldn't instantly be heard by thousands, let alone millions. Under your logic Congress should be allowed to ban speech on television or the Internet it disagrees with because the medium for such speech wasn't invented at the time the Bill of Rights was written.
2007-04-18 02:07:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by Kyrix 6
·
6⤊
0⤋
The amendment was created because our founding fathers expect this country to be a constituted limited republic. It was a different time. At West in the 1880's a repeating rifle was for protecting against the Native Americans raid. People knew that the police and the army will not be around all the time.
Also, there was handguns back at this time.
2007-04-18 02:08:23
·
answer #5
·
answered by c1523456 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
The Founding Father's intention of citizen gun ownership was to keep in check any standing armies of the government. In other words to keep tyranny at bay. That intention is as valid today as it ever was. With Bush putting on his "Terrorism Show" and greater "security" and the deletion of basic rights "under law", in other words, greater government control, tyranny is creeping in the back door while the soccer moms argue for more socialism. Its time to take note.
2007-04-18 02:24:42
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
a million. Fuko's weapon from Flame of Recca. 2. Tsubasa Chronicles. 3. destiny/stay evening. i did no longer know yet out of your clue that's already glaring. 5. Zoro's weapon from One Piece? I in no way considered One Piece.(crappy tagalog dub eek!) 6. Kurapica's chains. HunterXHunter. 8. Is that Haji from Blood +? i assumed he makes use of a cello. damn me I ought to exhibit screen extra Blood+. 9. that's Yuri's perverted sword. Kyo Kara Maou. 10. Sakura Kinomoto's team. Cardcaptor Sakura. that's all i know.
2016-12-10 05:14:54
·
answer #7
·
answered by mento 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Assault weapons weren't legal in West Hollywood when those two dude famously robbed a bank a few years back loaded with body armor and AK-47's.
Oops! There goes your argument!
2007-04-18 02:18:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
...and your point is?????
The 2nd Amendment was put in place for a reason. The founding fathers of the Constitution put it in so that the people of this nation can defend her from all attackers...foreign and domestic....
"To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... 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." --Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429
2007-04-18 02:39:39
·
answer #9
·
answered by watchlizard 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I feel the founding fathers would have approved of the citizens having similar weapons to that of government agents, as that is the real intent behind second amendment. Go ahead and use a musket if you wish, I'll take a semi-automatic, thank you.
2007-04-18 02:04:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
9⤊
0⤋
There are THOUSANDS of laws concerning gun ownership and use. What make you think one more would change anything? It is illegal to kill someone but there seems to be no shortage of people willing to do just that. It is illegal to enter this country without proper paperwork but MILLIONS do that and no one seems to care.
If the gun laws on the books were enforced there would still be people who use guns to commit crimes. If you ban guns altogether there will still be people who use them to commit crimes. We don't need any more laws that can't or won't be enforced.
2007-04-18 02:24:51
·
answer #11
·
answered by Sherilynne B 3
·
1⤊
0⤋