Is there a way to enforce gun control without violating our constitutional rights?

Question

Consider the recent occurance in the news with VT we need something to change. Especially keeping guns out of crazy people's hands.

Answer 1

The Government can put restrictions on who may possess firearms.

Practically speaking, gun control will not stop insane people from doing insane things. People who want to go on killing sprees will steal guns, use commonly available explosives (such as gasoline), or anything else that can use to achieve their goal.

Answer 2

Why is it one nut with a gun spurs people to want to see guns controlled.Why should we have more gun control.We have radar yet couldn't stop three jets from crashing into buildings.Better yet lets limit the amount of jets that can fly in and out of an air port.How about the people who get killed or injured every year by someone talking on a cell phone.Here is an idea stop blaming an object and focus on the idiot using it.Perhaps you should be thankful the guy used a gun.Look what Tim Mcveigh did with a Ryder truck.What could this man have been capable of if he had not gotten a gun.It is a high probability the death toll would have been higher.If he had no access to a legal gun do you believe he wouldn't have done anything.People are again blaming an object rather then the person.
Perhaps had the police and the school reacted better the outcome wouldn't have been so drastic.Perhaps if 10 students would have rushed the guy some deaths would have been avoided.Perhaps if more people made an effort to know those around them this guy wouldn't have gone goofy.Perhaps to many people put to much pressure on being popular.Perhaps we will never know.A gun is but a tool,in the wrong hands it can cause considerable damage.Yet so can a tank and I believe we all seen that news footage.Fertilizer in the hands of a farmer can help grow more crops.In the hands of a nut it can kill hundreds of people.A car in the hands of a responsible driver can safely get you to a destination.In the hands of a nut or a drunk it is a lethal weapon.We found out jets can be a lethal weapon as well.Yet people didn't want to limit flights.lets remove the internet it would limit sex offenders.It would reduce hackers.It would prevent most piracy.Making a law does not prevent people from breaking the law.It just allows them to be punished.Many places have laws about talking on a cell phone while driving.yet you will still see people jabbering away on their phone going 70 miles an hour.the law didn't prevent them from doing it.Many will say there is a big difference between taking a gun and shooting a person and talking on a cell phone when driving.Tell that to the man and woman who's 7 year old daughter is dead because she got hit by a car while the driver was distracted talking on their cell.I doubt they will see a difference.
We make laws to deter people from committing ill actions.Yet the only people the law stops is the honest law abiding person in the first place.Criminals do not care about the law they don't care about you and they have no issues harming you no matter what the law says.The idea of a law is to punish those who will break it.Why should the honest man be punished as well.
They manufacture automobiles that will go 125 miles per hour why?when the highest posted speed limit is 70.Why make automobiles that can go faster then the highest posted speed limit.Doesn't this encourage speeding.Why should we trust that a driver will maintain the speed limit.
My point in all this is we don't need more restrictions.We don't need more Government control.What we need is a smarter public.We need to teach the public how to combat nut jobs.

Answer 3

Even though it will not entirely stop such events, the limitation on the type of weapon legally held will help.
The problem has been in the recent case that he got into the campus with two handguns concealed. If these were banned except under specific licence, there would be no conflict with the Constitution.
In Australia, after the horrific events in Hobart, all self-loading weapons were banned, and a recall was undertaken. This wasn't difficult, as all weapons here were licensed, and therefore traceable. In the US, I don't know what you could do now, as anyone can have a gun, and there's no licensing system to follow up. The position becomes impossible.
The only way is a more consolidated and caring community spirit. Something almost as impossible in a capitalist world.

Answer 4

Any Gun control is a violation of our constitutional rights. There is much more to this latest story than you might think. VT had recently banned on campus the right to carry a concealed fire arm which in the state you can by permit. If any of the students or faculty would have had a firearm then that lunatic couldn't have killed so many people. The answer to your question is NO.

Even though you might not agree it is a constitutional right to bear arms. If the government takes that right from us its just a matter of time before they take them all.

"Any one who would sacrifice liberty for security deserves neither and will loose both" Ben Franklin ............i think

Answer 5

The unfortunate thing is that a person, who by current news is here on a Visa, got access to a few guns and killed a lot of people. This has re-sparked the debate over gun control. Those among us who believe that if there were no guns allowed in society this would not have happened seem to forget that there are no guns allowed on the campus of VT. That rule did not stop a crazed individual from exacting terror among those who were unable to protect themselves. News accounts also indicate that the campus security does not carry weapons.

Many news organizations from around the world are chiming in and blaming what happened on the lack of gun control in America. These countries ignore the fact that even though they have strict gun control laws, they have gun crimes and murders.

It will violate our constitutional rights, and terrorist would love to see us all disarmed, and so would some of next years Presidental hopefuls, this way, we will be defenseless.


Can someone point out the logic in saying that overly lax gun laws are to blame and then pointing out that STRICT gun control laws in Germany have not stopped gun attacks in two schools there? At least Germany recognizes that gun control does not work and that is because criminals do not obey the law. Once again, the guy who killed everyone was not allowed to have a gun on campus. Rules are only effective when people obey them.
This is just a cold hard fact. Responsible people who own guns do not go around shooting people. We have nearly 50 thousand deaths a year from vehicle accidents but we do not demand they take cars away. We demand that people who use cars irresponsibly be denied the right to drive. Maryland has extremely tough gun laws, especially in Baltimore, and yet nearly 300 people are killed there, by gun, each year. In the rural counties where legal gun ownership is more common, there are hardly any gun deaths. If gun laws work, Snoop Dogg would not be arrested over and over for ILLEGALLY carrying a gun. He would not even have a gun. If gun laws worked, the guy who shot and killed the off duty cop in Baltimore would not have had a gun because of his two previous gun arrests.

Laws only work for people who obey them. It is illegal to rob a bank but people rob banks. It is illegal to use cocaine (and it has no use except very limited medical) and yet people use cocaine all the time. That is outlawed so where are they getting it? Same place criminals get guns and will continue to get guns regardless of the number of laws making it illegal.

What happened at VT was a horrible tragedy and my heart goes out to he families and friends of the victims but let us focus on the real issue here. It was not a firearm that committed a crime there. It was a person determined to kill people. If guns were not available, he would have found another method. Put the blame where it belongs, on the individual. I know that is hard considering the liberal idea that no one is responsible for anything (except George Bush).

God Bless VT and those affected by this CRIMINAL act.

Answer 6

Passing new laws restricting the rights of the law abiding citizen is the wrong way to go. We need enforcement of laws already on the books.

There are thousands of "gun control" laws on the books that they fail to enforce. Cho was nuts. His class mates knew it, his teachers knew it, a judge ruled on it and yet someone failed to inform the federal government and he was illegally allowed to buy two guns.

If we enforce the laws we do have and stop making places like schools "killing fields" where no law abiding person can carry a gun, we will have a much safer society..

Answer 7

Roe v. Wade is a constitutional decision. He is simply restating what is true; according to how the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment was construed by the Supreme Court. This is a painfully ignorant question. By all means -- personally be against abortion, if you need to be. But you cannot twist reality to fit your personal perspectives. In terms you can understand: pride is a deadly sin. EDIT: "Isn't the "right to life" a constitutional right? Did the 54 million Americans who were murdered NOT Have "right to life"???" The right to life language is taken from the declaration of independence. Under our constitution, a person cannot be deprived of life without due process of law. The Supreme Court weighed the woman's right versus the unborn child's, and explained their decision thoroughly in Roe v. Wade. You have come here to express your opinion, and have mistated the facts. Simply google "Declaration of Independence" and "US Constitution" and you will see your problem. I hope you take your Biblical studies more seriously than your civic studies. Clearly you don't care very much about your citizenship. Maybe you should reflect on your priorities.

Answer 8

Yes, while I completely support our rights to have guns responsibly and that those rights are important, I would also totally support very thorough background checks on people. People with a history of mental illness or people with a past felony on their record should not be able to get a gun.

Answer 9

FBI back round checks will eventually be used to disarm the general populous. Only people with special licenses (government connections) will be able to bear arms.

See Australia, Europe, Canada, China, etc.

Just one step closer to a totalitarian regime.

Lunatics in these places still have fire arms. Only the "good guys" comply with gun control.

Doesn't the government have enough power reading our emails, listening to phone calls, reading our mail, watching our internet habits, RFID chips in passports.... Where would you like this to end?

Personally I think we have few enough freedoms & they will strip us of all constitutional rights once have taken our meager means of self defense.

Answer 10

Tracking microchips for every firearm that track location and have sale/ownership data which would be available to local, state and federal law enforcement so they can track the location, movement and know instantly who is the owner of firearms in question. Felony for anyone who refuses to microchip. 10 years minimum for each violation. No guns taken away - 100% second amendment proof. Bush supports this.