To avoid a repeat of the horrific killings in Virginia-does the outdated American Constitution need re-amended

Question

Especially the right to bear arms...................ridiculous in this day and age?

Classic case for cause and effect analysis,methinks!!

Raymond(What a geeky name or what?),methinks Dustin Hoffman's character in Rain Man was probably based on you!!

Answer 1

dunno but if he had used an ooozeeeeeeeeee 9 miiilleeeeemeeeetrrreeeeeeeee he may have had more press!? god this site is bolloX
x

Answer 2

The Second Amendment guarantees protection of the right to bear arms, but that school being a gun-free zone denied these victims that right.

Now, perhaps they were all enlightened individuals and would have chosen to remain unarmed in any event, in which case allowing them that choice would have had no effect.

On the other hand, had these students and teachers had the opportunity to make that choice, it is reasonable to believe that one or more might have been armed, and might possibly have ended this slaughter with less loss of life.

Only a fool would believe that this would have happened sooner in the absence of gun laws, and it takes a moron to conclude that the incident suggests that we need even more. How can you explain the fact that the kind of people who do this are CRIMINALS and by definition do not care about your laws?

The Constitution doesn't need to be amended, it needs to be enforced. Why you want to amend something you neither observe nor respect is a mystery.

Answer 3

this tragedy is a tragedy, but there are many more things wrong with this country that need to be fixed than the publicity about this shows. If larger problems are fixed, many of the smaller will go away, im not saying that slaughtering a bunch of innocent people is a small thing, but its a symptom, not a disease. Before we start messing about with bandaids on the constitution, lets get the rest of our affairs in order and make sure the united states remains a second world country instead of rapidly becoming a fourth world one.

Answer 4

In New York in 1854 a madman killed 24 people with a butcher's cleaver, including 2 armed police officers. Should we ban cleavers?

A gun is a tool for either good or evil; It is true that Cho Seung-Hui used it for evil. Virginia Tech did not allow guns on campus. However, had any of the individuals on VT's campus had a gun, they could have stopped the massacre much earlier. Banning guns will not keep those truly motivated from doing evil from committing evil acts; They will find a way to find guns or use alternative means.

The answer is not a "gun-free" society; The answer is an open society where we make it easy for people to discuss their feelings and problems they are having.

Answer 5

Methinks you are ignorant of the Declaration of Independence, as in: When in the course of human events it becomes NECESSARY. (What? To throw marshmallows? Huh? DOHH!!) Do you throw marshmallows celebrating July 4th, 1776?


Methinks you are ignorant of the preamble of the United States Constitution.


Methinks you are ignorant posting such a question in a Country that possesses the biggest fire arms known to mankind, our Nuclear Arsenal, for a reason. Talk about clueless!

Methinks you are a childlike mentality pretending what it would be like to say something intelligent and have failed.

Good day.

Answer 6

I completly agree - Take out the portion about a well regulated militia ... and then the document is functioning as originally intended. That the RIGHT to own a firearm was given by GOD and this right shall not be infringed by the government. In todays terms that is a right that no President, Legislative or Judicical Branch can take away. It is a right to EVERY person from GOD to defend themselves.

Answer 7

I still maintain that the "right to bear arms" is correct in the way that Family Guy defines it: as the actual arms of a bear.

On a serious note gun control is not as effective as everyone makes it out to be. In Australia we experienced stricter gun control legislation after the Port Arthur Massacre. There was a gun buy-back scheme run by the government, where they bought everyone's guns off them and then destroyed them.

Guns can still be bought and owned but there are tougher regulations about how they are to be stored and carried. For instance guns must be kept under lock and key separate from ammunition, and both must be in a secure box that is bolted/attached to the floor. Alternatively you can keep your gun and ammo at a shooting range or gun club.

The laws haven't affected the sport shooting enthusiasts at all. The laws haven't affected criminals at all either.

Criminals still own guns in Australia. Sure the access to these guns is limited, we can't just rock up to a store and buy a gun anymore. But criminals didn't hand their guns in when the buy-back scheme went on. They merely buried them in the ground in insulated piping and dug them back up after all the hype and investigations had blown over.

There are also things that are just as deadly as guns that aren't outlawed. Like knives, cars, poisons, fists... If someone's going to kill someone they're not necessarily going to do it with a loud and noisy gun unless they have to.

Given the population mass of the US and the number of gun owners, outlawing the right to bear arms would be ridiculously ineffective. But the storage of guns and ammo could certainly be reviewed. This would prevent kids from taking their parents' guns to school and shooting everyone.

Cheaper mental health care could also be another avenue to look at. People don't just kill people, there are always reasons and there's a big jump between an argument and a shooting.

Answer 8

Referring to the "right to bear arms" IMO I would say no because, it's the individual behind the weapon doing the killing not the inanimate object. Someone could just as well drive a car into a crowd or assemble a makeshift bomb. There are new technologies out and being tested however that enable it only for the registered owner of a firearm to fire that weapon due to high-tec owner recognitions built-in to the firearm itself. This would be a great deterrent of voilent crime and lead to many solved crimes if used widely.

Answer 9

How do you ban something that exists...I mean REALLY? People like you live in a fairytale world. You would prefer to say this is the way it should be, even though getting there is obviously impossible. Instead of trying to fix the personal and societal cause of the violence, you take the easy way out and simply focus on the tool used. "Just throw away the guns and everything will be fine, right?" It's totally short-sighted and a waste of time.

Focus on the real issues, people...FOCUS!!

Answer 10

Idiot!! The founding Fathers were pretty Sharpe for their time. Whether you believe in it or not those guns protect everyone. Look around the world at what is being done to people by Corrupt governments. This right is part of checks and balance in the U.S. Our country has a 2 million man army, but the people have a 150 million man army because of the guns! Your government would take all the rights they can get, but this right to bear arms keeps a balance.

Answer 11

Well, this deranged man bought his gun legally...

What you must remember is that if guns are outlawed - only the law abiding citizens would turn them in. The thugs and murderers would not.

If a person is hell-bent on having a gun, they will get one. Where do you think all the "street" guns come from. All the gangs in our major cities and many other people who couldn't legally purchase a weapon - have them anyway.

Would you want to live in a society where only the thugs, the police and the military have the weapons?

I wouldn't!