A 100% serious question for Liberals (PLEASE READ!).....?

Question

OK, I have heard many Liberals advocating gun control. Now we all know that the 2nd Amendment calls for ownership of guns, the debate is whether or not it is for PERSONAL ownership or ownership for a state militia.
But either way, it’s a tricky situation. If we try to ban guns, it’s kinda like “We MAY be treading on their second Amendment rights, but we may not be”

But, I can understand where you are coming from. The idea is, the rights given to us by the second Amendment are not worth our safety. In other words, we may or may not be taking away rights, but our world will be safer, so it is OK. ( I may not agree with that, but I understand where you are coming from)

So, if we somewhat fudge our right to bear arms in the interest of Public Safety, can’t we fudge another right, in the same interest? If we are going to keep criminals from owning guns to protect us, can’t we also silence organizations like NAMBLA to protect our children?

I mean, you guys say that guns benefit nothing to our society, and I’ll go along with that (even though I don’t agree). But isn’t it just as obvious; in fact, more so, that NAMBLA contributes even less?

Our nation IS a haven for criminals, and that’s sad. But it is also a haven for sex offenders, who often get out of jail on parole in only a fraction of their sentence. So, if we make this country safer for gun victims, why not make it safer for sex offender victims, also?

OK, apparently NO ONE realized that this wasn't about gun control...

Answer 1

you make a fair point.

but i think it comes down to people's opinion on the validity and necessity of the rights in question.

i think a lot of people believe that the 2nd amendment is outdated, since when it was written it would take a gunman a minute or so to reload his gun ergo guns weren't as nearly as dangerous then as they are today. it was also put in place so that we would have an armed populace in the event that our government tried to usurp the power of the people. in this day and age only the most paranoid of people truly believe that the govt. is out to get us and we must arm ourselves against it.

this is in contrast to other rights within the bill of rights which seem to have a lot more validity in today's world. the freedom of speech, the press, the right to assemble, the right to a fair trial, the right to practice your own religion, etc. are all very important today.

that is why i believe liberals are more willing to curb the 2nd amendment but not the others.

Answer 2

The patriot act has already altered your rights under the 4th amendment. So the answer is yes, rights can be taken in the interest of public safety. The Patriot act exemplifies that.

Very few are advocating an all out ban on guns, however recognizing that those who have been deemed mentally unstable, and even a danger to themselves and others can legally purchase a firearm. That is a problem. The events of the last few days have brought that to the front of everybody's mind. This isn't about an all out ban on firearms, it is more or less about refining the gun controls that are already in place so that those who we know are a danger cannot legally obtain firearms of any kind.

Gun control does not prevent sane and law abiding citizens from purchasing weapons, it does however make it a little more difficult for crazy people or criminals to.

Answer 3

When the 2nd amendment was written, there was not a standing army. Thus, (in my opinion) this amendment was a way that the Government could have a ready-made militia through private purchase of firearms. To that end, the amendment is largely unchanged.

However, if one thinks of the mindset of the 18th century person v. the 21st century person and their lifestyle, guns are no longer needed to hunt 'game' or to protect from invading armies. Every house that had a gun, was trained in proper use, as the cost of ammunition, powder and the gun itself was nearly a requirement for survival. Compare that to now. There is no obligation for training. Just have the money and a 'clean' record. To me, that is a crucial difference. I'm not afraid of a gun, or a gun owner. What terrifies me is a gun in the hands of someone that has had training through what they see on TV, or movies.

I would like to see that gun ownership is allowed (NOT including missles, automatic weapons, plastic weapons, large capacity magazines) and there is mandatory training on proper use. Call it a license, call it what you want. But guns in America are a reality... And the sooner that people understand the real respect that a gun requires, the better.

Answer 4

If our guns are taken away we have no means to protect ourselves. When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Crime will go crazy because they will know that Innocent citizens have no means to protect themselves. There are underground ways to get guns. Also the gun doesn't kill it doesn't decide it is going to massacre however many people. It is the nut on the other side of the gun. So before outlawing our constitutional right in the second amendment think about the impact it will have on our country. Also read up about Prohibition in the United States in the 1920's. I think that this will be the same idea. There will be many people who will be afraid or unwilling to give up there guns as there were many people unwilling to give up their liqueur in the 1920's including policemen and judges. Just think about it and you will see that it is not that good of a idea. One last thought criminals can use anything not just guns to commit a crime or get what they want. If they can't buy one or get it off of the black market, some resourceful ones will make one. Maybe some will use knives. What will you do then?

Answer 5

The 2nd amendment has recently been interpreted that self-defense is a right all americans should have. This does not include weapons that constitute a real danger to the public. Otherwise, it would be perfectly legal for me or you to own millitary weapons like land mines and anti-air missle batteries.

The shootings in Virginia highlight just how lax our gun control laws are. The guns used were purchased legally.

Maybe you believe that a 16 shot glock 9mm is needed for a person to defend themselves and their home. I do not. These pistols hold more ammunition and are far easier to reload than traditional revolver-style pistols. They are also more accurate, and concealable. These guns present a very real public danger, as shown by Virginia Tech. In the case of handguns, and for that matter all automatic weapons, the public threat is great enough to warrant a degredation of a constitutional right.

The second amendment should be preserved, people should always have the right to defend themselves and their property, but weapons that pose a public danger, like 16 shot handguns and automatic weapons, should be banned. Only a police officer needs this much firepower in such a small package. Long guns, like rifles and shotguns, offer just as much protection, but are not easily concealed, require both hands to operate, do not hold as much ammunition, and are not reloaded as quickly as a handgun.

It is really sad that much of the right-wing is unable or unwilling to compromise on this issue. Hunting and self-defense would still be possible with long guns. But other types of weapons, which are too dangerous, shouldn't be available for any nutjob to pick up in a store as easily as Cho did.

Answer 6

I am very liberal, yet I oppose gun bans or any further erosion of 2nd amendment liberty--as do most liberals I know personally.

So don't blame liberals for, example, the Brady Bill (named after Ronald Reagan's press secretary).

Some of the other responders here have brought up excellent points--such as the antipatriotic "Patriot" Act.

The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with state militias, which did not exist at the time it was written and ratified. It provides for private ownership of arms. It is ridiculous to insist the 2nd amendment applies only to state governments, whereas the other 9 articles of the Bill of Rights refer to invididual liberties. It is also ridiculous to insist that the 2nd amendment implies standing armies may be armed. How can one have an army without arms? That is plain stupid. We don't need to have a special law allowing our army to possess armaments. That is the kind of interpretation only a weak minded person might invent to prop up a flimsy argument.

When I think about rights revoked by this present "conservative" administration, I think about habeus corpus, the Geneva Conventions, the right to council, the right to appeal, the right to representation, the right NOT to be tortured, the right to be secure in one's person and possessions, the right not to be spied upon, or eavesdropped upon, or to have one's mail read or tampered with...

Lots of rights forsaken as of late, and for no discernable good cause.

Benjamin Franklin, a liberal, stated that "those who would exchange a necessary liberty for a temporary security will lose both and deserve neither." Amen to that!

[Addendum: Truth write above that semiautomatics are easier to reload than revolvers. That is true. Then he adds that they are more accurate. Accuracy has nothing to do with how ammunition is loaded into a firing chamber. My tightest pistol group was made with a pearl handled .38 revolver. Those overlapping shots were based on the quality of the barrel and set of the trigger, not on the type of magazine or grip.]

[Addendum 2: "Ok, no one seems to realize this is NOT about gun control." Well, your lead sentence is: "OK, I have heard many Liberals advocating gun control." Then you conclude with a statement about making the US safer for victims of gun violence, but not safer for children from sexual predators.]

Answer 7

The constitution is seriously outdated! The world is a very different place than when it was written, so yes I do think things have to change. All weapons are made for is for killing and killing only so why should everyone be armed? How many children,innocent people and animals have to die before someone realizes that arming everyone in this country is not a good idea.Laws also need to change for the sex offenders, they get little more than a slap on the wrist for commiting something so horrible.Big changes need to be made in many areas of law,we don't live in the 1700's anymore. And no I am not a liberal, I don't belong to any group, because I like thinking for myself.

Answer 8

That's a tricky question. I would consider myself liberal, and I must point out that gun control is important in any civilized, non-militant country. We are probably the only first-class country that has such flaccid gun laws, and we happen to have more gun fatalities.

On the other hand, would it really help us? I mean, this would make it illegal for certain criminals to have guns-- which is EXACTLY what they do in the first place. The law breakers would keep the guns because, well, they break the damn law.

On a side note, I like how you tried to pin sex offenders on the liberal side, despite the fact that select pastors (the Christian right) are the ones that believe age ain't nothing but a number. Ha.

Answer 9

What do you mean, like file a law suit? What are your damages? What are your remedies? I don't think you have a case. The teacher provided you with legitimate reasons for the grade he gave you: Your use of emotional words (clearly, tremendous), which are normally indicative of conclusionary statements. In a history, you cannot use conclusionary statements. Instead, you have to provide evidence and that provide a conclusion. Just take your C and be happy. Try not to get too emotionally involved and inserting your personal opinion on your next essay. It gets worse in College. It is best if you learn how to play the game now.

Answer 10

Actually, I'm a liberal and I don't believe that guns should be banned. After all, I think that we all have the right to protect ourselves. However, I don't see anything wrong with there being a waiting period or having to have one's guns registered. That being said, though, I can't help but think that no matter how much legislation we have concerning guns, the bad guys are going to get their paws on them one way or another.