English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-06-16 09:56:05 · 15 answers · asked by Ariadne on TAURUS 2 in Politics & Government Government

15 answers

yes it would, just means more people would have illegal guns. Its already illegal of a convicted felon to carry a weapon, yet they still do...so why should someone who hasn't been in trouble not be allowed a gun to protect themselves from the people with illegal guns.

2007-06-16 10:00:12 · answer #1 · answered by Video_Production 6 · 3 0

Dear Ariadne on TAURUS,
I would like to know how old you are for two reasons.
1. I suspect that you are quite young. Because of this (which is not your fault) you have little understanding of the second amendment that clearly states: " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now the liberal/left would have all of us believe that the only right to arms involves a militia. The great big hole in their argument is that state militias did not issue arms. If you were to join the militia at that time, it was already assumed that you would bring your own. Thus the right of private citizens to be self-armed.

2. Let's look at the eighteenth Amendment. That banned the sale, manufacture, or transportation of alcoholic beverages across the entire nation. It was ratified on Jan. 16, 1919. It was repealed by the twenty-first Amendment on Dec. 5, 1933.
The major reason that Amendment was repealed was that alcohol consumption merely went under-ground. The crime rate of the entire country soared. The likes of Al Capone. the Purple Gang, the Mafia, and others became synonomous with a certain degree of hero-worship.

Given that, does it make sense to; first deny citizens their constitutional right to bear arms and secondly; Does anyone seriously believe that black-market gun dealers would not be licking their chops at the opportunity that would exist if legal gun ownership was abolished?

I feel the need to apologize for the lack of education you have had to endure, you and so many of your peers. It is an awesome task to take on the responsibility of enlightening yourself because what passes for education today has deserted its obligation.

2007-06-16 17:44:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

You would have to take mine bullets first. There will be no repealing of my second amendment right.
So you could say yeah there would be a whole lot of change if they banned possession of private guns.
The second amendment states that the rights of the people to keep and bare arms and maintain a private militia shall not be infringed upon.
Our country got started with this freedom without it you would be speaking with a British accent right now. ( Not that that is necessarily bad or anything. I love England it is just fact.) If is a fundamental right in the the bill of rights. and it will never be repealed I don't think the majority of the people would be able to put up with that I know I wouldn't not because I am a gun nut or anything but if you wanted to take them from me. I know I wouldn't give them up. It is the principal of the thing.

2007-06-16 17:12:03 · answer #3 · answered by *ACDC* 4 · 0 0

Yes, if guns were banned for law abiding citizens, then every criminal in the U.S. would know that he could break in a home and take what he wants and when he wants it. If the homeowner has no protection, the criminal has a free hand at being a criminal. He can break through the front door, rape the daughter, take the jewelry, etc. while the parents pray the criminal doesn't use HIS gun on them before he leaves the house. It's true. If you take away the guns, only criminals will have guns then.

2007-06-16 18:33:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

private guns are the only thing that stops the government from taking more and more of your liberties. it also would have an adverse affect on wildlife. more crimes would be committed because the criminals always have an edge when it comes to getting weapons. instead of trying to take weapons from the people we should have to be armed and then the phrase do you feel lucky punk would stand for something other than a phrase from a movie

2007-06-16 17:13:55 · answer #5 · answered by mr doodles 4 · 0 0

Yes just look what happened to the countries that did ban guns. Murders and crime increased 500 %.

2007-06-16 18:02:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Americans would cease being citizens and become subjects.

The idea of gun control was a stench in the nostrils of our Founders as can be seen in the Federalist Papers that expound on the Constitution and writings of our other Founders.

We'd become as weak kneed as Europe.

2007-06-20 04:25:36 · answer #7 · answered by .45 Peacemaker 7 · 0 0

yes, you wouldn't be able to defend yourself as well if someone broke into your house or in any emergency situation where you needed to defend yourself...
more crimes would occur if private guns were banned...

2007-06-16 17:16:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Yep, like many many of my fellow gun owners, they'd have to kill us in order to take my guns. How would you feel if they ban your car? You drive it to work and for pleasure but it can also kill.

2007-06-16 17:00:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Yes, then the government could take us away to their fascist fema camps without any resistance, after they impose martial law.

2007-06-17 17:31:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers