Should the government create a new amendment?

Question

Apparently, it is too easy to purchase weapons in this country. More people use these weapons for crime rather than self defense.
Should the government create a new amendment on restricting all lethal weapons (ie. firearms) to the public?
Share your opinions.
http://wcbstv.com/politics/politicsnational_story_107031103.html

Answer 1

No. Legal, concealed guns were banned on campus. Only law-abiding people obeyed that mandate. The VT killer obviously didn't care about the restrictions on weaponry. So everybody was defenseless when he barged into their classrooms.

If at least one of the professors had been cleared to carry a concealed weapon things might have been different. Equal rights levels the playing field. If more good people have guns, they can protect themselves against criminals who will get them anyway. Does this make sense?

Of course, it doesn't pan out when one considers the lower rates of gun death in Western European countries, which are more restrictive on gun rights. But the U.S.A. has a significant black market here, as well. Anyone can get a gun if they try hard enough. It's a sad reality, so the best thing to do is to respect the second amendment, within reason, and insure that the responsible people have an opportunity to protect themselves.

Answer 2

Let me get this straight... You want the government to create a new amendment that abolishes the second amendment???

I'm a little confused. It appears that you think we should abolish the second amendment, but your link says nothing to support that...? It sort of in a way supports making stricter laws, but nothing for restricting lethal weapons..

I cannot believe I am reading this question from the Legend...

The second amendment was set in place so that the public has the right to bear arms to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. This amendment should NEVER be abolished, because we do not need the government coming into our homes 20 years after the abolishment of the second amendment, when we have no way of defending ourselves!

Not only that, but do you honestly think that by making something illegal to possess you take the item off the streets? Aren't drugs illegal... Yet, I know a lot of people who use drugs, and I'm sure you know people who use drugs. Do you honestly think that a criminal is going to sit there and say "awe, they made guns illegal. Well, I better turn in my guns :(" ? I think more than likely he'll be saying "Yes! They made guns illegal!! Now I know that when I break into a law abiding citizens home, he's less likely to own a gun to use against me... And even if he has a gun, he'll also go to jail for using it on me!"

Criminals will ALWAYS have access to ANYTHING illegal!

----------------------------------------------

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

Do you see how 80% of the criminals purchased their guns??

Answer 3

It is harder now to purchase a gun than it has ever been in our history. We used to be able to carry a gun openly and had very few problems. It's not the guns are the availability, its the nutcases. Gun laws do nothing to stop these things. The only thing they do do is to punish law abiding citizens from exercising their right to own a gun.

In this latest tragedy the gun laws worked as they were intended. The loser was of legal age and had residency and the background check did not show anything that should have prevented him from purchasing his weapons. Thats were the problem lies. There was nothing in the background check, especially when this nutcase had history of instability.

And thats a lie that guns are used for crimes more than for self defense. Gun grabber propaganda pure and simple.

No the gov should not and they cannot because we have the right. You might want to read up on the term "unalienable" means.

Answer 4

This is a pointless question, no offense. It just won't ever change. If you banned guns all the nut jobs would come out of the woodwork and cause way more deaths than there are now. You want the Michigan Militia and the Timmothy McVeys to come back? I know it's obviously the right thing to do, but this is the real world and you have to account for all the killings they would do if you created such a law. Are you ready for that? Plus you won't get much popular support from the media. You see how much everyone is making from this "Media event"? Sorry, pointless question, it will never change.

P.s. There are some seriously nutty answers on here. I love the one about how "You need guns to protect you from the government!" - see what I mean about the nut jobs coming out if you pass such a law?

Answer 5

The citizens of America should force the US government to form a new amendment cause the 2nd Amendment is not working. The right to bear arms has a different meaning today than it did in 1786. Heck, the language of the second amendment looks like something they are doing in Iraq (i.e. Shia militias bearing arms and US trying to remove their right to bear arms). The second amendment was formulated due to the lack of a federal-armed response to any threats to America (internal or external) and the slow transportation system at the time. With the largest and strongest military on earth, America no longer needs the "right of every citizen to bear arms". With the ability to militarily mobilize anywhere on earth within 48 hours, America no longer needs the "right of every citizen to bear arms".

The government should strictly close down gun distribution in America and strengthen laws for law enforcement gun abuse. Police and the Military would be the only ones authorized to use firearms. Sorry to all the hunters out there, you will need to find another hobby! At the same time, the US Government would need to have stiffer penalties for those who violate the "no gun" law and also for law enforcement that abuses their use of guns.

For those who already own guns, keep them. The ammunition would also be apart of this "no gun" (and "no ammunition") law.

Unfortunately with all this said, I fear the vast majority of Americans will want the 2nd Amendment to stay as it is. America was founded on violence and the gun. It is apart of the American pscyhe.

Answer 6

In June 1981, Morton Grove, Ill., a northern suburb of Chicago, passed an ordinance banning handguns. In reaction, Kennesaw, Ga., a northern suburb of Atlanta, passed an ordinance requiring heads of households "to maintain a firearm" and ammunition "to provide for the civil defense" and "protect the general welfare of the City and its inhabitants."

The results:

Not much of anything in Morton Grove. "We were fortunate to have a low rate of violent crime before the ordinance was passed, and we are fortunate now that the rate is still low," Incledon told UPI.

But Kennesaw's crime rate plummeted. In fact, the number of some crimes declined amid soaring population growth. For example, in figures the city provided to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Kennesaw had 54 burglaries in 1981 – the year before the gun ordinance – with a population of 5,242. In 1999, with a population of 19,000, only 36 burglaries were reported.

The rate of violent crime is approximately four times lower than the state and national rates, Kennesaw's Crime Statistics Report said. "Violent crime is almost nonexistent in residential neighborhoods," Graydon told UPI. The detective, who has been with the police department since 1986, said the isolated exceptions take place in motels or in commercial areas.

Answer 7

When you restrict the ownership of weapons by private citizens, you put us all at risk. I live in the country. The county sheriff's office is over 15 miles away. If someone came into my home with the intent of harming my family, I would much rather have a gun to defend myself and family than take the chance that the person there to hurt me would listen when I said, "Hey, can ya wait about half an hour to shoot me so the sheriff has time to get here and stop you?!" Doesn't make much sense does it?

Answer 8

I feel more stringent background checks, and testing is very appropriate. But taking guns, and the rights to own them away from law abiding citizens, will do nothing to stop crimes with firearms. Most of the crimes committed with guns are with guns bought illegally. I know this nut got his legally, but that is more the exception than the rule.

Pilots now have the right to carry guns, professors could be given that right also.

Bob Marley Rules !!!

Answer 9

Do external opinions matter? When one is a self described "world unto themselves" I have to wonder. Cho decided no one else mattered. Secretive, tough,"got it all figured out" sounds teenage, inexperianced and bordering on Schitzo! It describes adisfunctional personality; haveing such defects that it's improbable that any "sound reasoning" could possibly be comprehended or- occur in such a mindframe.

Answer 10

Its perplexing how gun advocates can claim increasing gun ownership will decrease crime when in comparison with Europe (excluding Switzerland which has comparable gun ownership and gun violence the US) in the absence of large gun ownership, there is little to no gun related violence.

Obviously an ideal US without guns is a utopian pipe dream. However, everyone owning guns in order to 'protect' themselves is ridiculous. How many maniacs can be trusted with guns? Don't give the maniacs guns you say? How can you guarantee anyone you sell a gun to won't flip out?

We shouldn't be increasing or decreasing gun ownership, we should be attacking the root cause of gun violence - mainly widespread poverty resulting from poor public education institutions as well as aspects of our society and culture, such as cinema and music, that glorify violence.