Should the second amendment be... well, amended?
What's YOUR opinion?
(I asked this question a week ago and, in light of recent events, wondered if I would get a different response than I did last week)
2007-04-20 05:41:07 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
no because even if you ban guns it doesn't change the fact that criminals are gonna have them it just means those of us who purchase them legally now no longer have our means of defending ourselves, A gun is a powerfull tool and when in the right hands can be a good thing but in the wrong leads to trouble does that mean we should ban them NoOOOooooo... Some people suck at cooking does that mean we should ban cooking NoOOOooooo a knife is and can be a deadly weapon does that mean we should ban Knives NoOOOooooo, an automobile can be deadly does that mean we should ban automobiles and walk everywhere NoOOOoooo...
2007-04-20 05:48:36 · answer #1 · answered by 98' Vortec 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There really is no point, you can't keep guns away from anyone, if they want a gun they will get one no matter how many checks or bans you put out. Most bans only apply to assualt rifles or huge caliber hand guns which most criminals and murderers don't even use usually because they are too big and cumbersome to use effectively. To say we should stop making guns would put many people out of jobs and would actually give money to people who provide guns illegally. It's a lose, lose situation. We have to work on social issues that lead to guns being used, but most people turn a blind eye and would rather just lock people up in prisons which ends up costing tax payers even more.
2007-04-20 12:49:18 · answer #2 · answered by Eric W 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
No amended gun laws would have changed what happened at Virginia Tech. History will bear out that a free society in support of our second amendment is truly the only correct response.
In looking at the countries with gun bans it is interesting to note the following:
Great Britain: Increase in gun violence of 38%
Australia: Increase in gun violence of 32%
Japan (the strictest gun laws in the world): gun violence increase of 28%
These countries have the strictest gun laws in the world, and yet gun violence is on the rise.
Violent criminals thrive in a society which disarms its population. Crime statistics have proven that any state which enacts a "right to carry" law shows dramatic decrease in gun related crimes.
There is a saying, "if you take away the guns of the law abiding citizenry, then only criminals will have guns".
The Rosie O'Donnells of the world are living in a grave hypocrisy. If Rosie is so passionate about gun banning, why does her security force carry guns? They could easily carry non-lethal weaponry instead.
And NO I am not a member of the NRA; and yes I do carry concealed.
2007-04-20 12:52:59 · answer #3 · answered by Klondike John 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When haveing a gun becomes a crime then only criminals will have guns.
If guns kill people can I blame misspelled words on my keyboard?
Even if we do not hunt, we should all own guns, Our forefathers believed that our own government might become a tyrany and at that point we would need to overthrow it. While I do not believe we have reached that point there is a good chance we will, and if the police are armed, the criminals are armed, and good honest law abiding people are the only ones not armed. We're gonna get scr3wed.
2007-04-21 16:37:13 · answer #4 · answered by goddessmelanisia 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are only two classes of people who want to see GOOD people disarmed, criminals and tyrants. And that is why the writers of the Bill of Rights put the 2nd amendment there. It says what it says - no infringement. You cannot amend that, you can only abolish it.
2007-04-20 12:49:19 · answer #5 · answered by mikey 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No.
After the V. Tech. incident, some nut case threatened to do the same thing here in Northern CA.
*I have three functioning guns (two have to be repaired...)
*I would have been able to defend myself from this guy, if he had come over to my neighborhood.
**Not if he had come to my school (I'm a school teacher).
**All of the martial arts training in the world would NOT have protected my students from this nutso, had he come to my school (2,000+ students, 120+ staff, ONE armed police officer on campus -YOU do the math...).
As was stated above, criminals LOVE an unarmed citizenry.
Peace.
2007-04-20 13:22:30 · answer #6 · answered by chuck U 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope!
Perhaps if Virginia Tech didn't ban lawfully owned weapons on their campus, Cho would have been taken out before he took 32 lives.
2007-04-20 17:28:50 · answer #7 · answered by mikehunt29 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that guns should be banned. that only poeple with hunters permit may own a hunting gun, besides them no one can own a gun. i beleive that if no own guns then something like the virginia tech. incident wouldnt happen, at leats not as easiy. i also beleive that the suicide rate may go down, as well many other crimes commited now a days.
2007-04-20 12:52:01 · answer #8 · answered by k2boarder90 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no..."guns dont kill people, people kill people."
if some kid gets ahold of a gun, then thats because his/her parents (or whoever) weren't responsible and didnt lock it up like they should've.
If a gun is lying on a table and there is nobody there to mess with it, then the gun will do no harm...its stupid people that cause the harm.
2007-04-20 13:00:15 · answer #9 · answered by ♥♫Hilary♫♥ 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hunting rifles -- no
Semi-automatic and automatic handguns - YES
There is no purpose to these handguns other than to KILL OTHER PEOPLE. Why are they legal???
Do you know that EACH person he killed had AT LEAST THREE bullet wounds? To be able to shoot so many people so many times in such a short amount of time should be a wake up call to America!!!
2007-04-20 12:47:24 · answer #10 · answered by Elaura 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋