Do you think we should have gun control?

Question

First off guns are not your constituional right anyone who says that is taking it completly out of context.

But I want to know what people say without using that because I do not really have a stance I just hate people using the "my rights argument"

lmfao I have no idea what I'm talking about?

"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."

Exact words buddy so unless you and all the other folks in the trailer park go out patroling for terrorists I know what I am talking about. Playa.

I am arguing it by pointing you to the fact that it says "A well regulated millitia being nessacary to the security fo a free state...."

We do not need a millitia so you are taking it out of context by simply taking the part that says guns guns guns

Whoa Obbie Dobbie Dooo. Lets calm down okay, I think your a bit to excited.

Back then the colonies did not see themselves as one country but no everybody does so I don't see where you are coming from with that are you trying to say that all the states need guns to fight each other? Besides guns are the only thing there that infringe of peoples right to life.

Answer 1

First- I don't have guns around. I haven't touched or fired a gun in years. I've never been a nra member. I don't belong to any modern milita group. But, I gotta disagree with you about the "IF" of the right to own arms. That arms tidbit wasn't included in the Constitution because our forefathers had parchment space to fill up, so they just scribbled in meaningless junk to fill space, and make the document more impressive looking. Like it or not, the second amendment IS part of the foundation of the social contract between the peoples of the various states, and the US government. Few realize it, but at the end of the Revolutionary War, each of the colonies signed separate peace treaties with England. Each colony was a Soverign nation, and were recognized as such by the nations of the world. When the colonies decided to band together to form the US, representatives came up with the US Constitution- which they submitted to the colonies, to decide IF the colony wanted to be part of the US. The colonies said NO!!! Too much leeway for the US government to stomp on people. So, the represenatives tacked on ten amendments, to spell out things that the colonies insisted on as conditions for being part of the US. So, that unimportant little second amendment you're so quick to dismiss ISN'T there by accident. Do you remember what the first ten amendments are called??? Bill of rights ring a bell? Do you want to disregard the rest of those first ten? Or just the second? Do you want to give up innocent until proven guilty? The right to worship? Arbitrary searches? On the off chance that you honestly have no stance, try doing some reading about the process where the US got started. It's interesting, and makes the US constitution a lot more understandable. There are lots of letters, drafts, and records about the Constitutional creation. If you want to understand, see for yourself. It ain't rocket science. It just isn't easily found, cuz the ideas and facts counter many popluar ideas.

Answer 2

Your ignoring some important items if you claim that the constitution doesn't recognize the freedom to bare arms:

1. We had just fought a war with a country that had tried to confiscate privately own firearms.
2. The constitution limits government, not the populace
3. The Second Amendment is the fail safe to keep the government from infringing on rights.
4. No one wanted a standing army because of the quartering act that the British installed. A standing army could be an oppression to the Americans so it was desired that it was avoided. BUT they recogized that they needed at least a militia and because of this fact, the populace necessarily needed to be armed.
5. The last phrase of the 2nd Amendment, 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,' makes no sense if it was about being part of a militia. It might be a civic duty but a right...that's just silly.
6. There is a comma after common defense...it might as well be a therefor.
7. It is spell out in the Second Amendment as the Right of the people to keep and bear arms. Shall not was the same as putting something in stone.
8. The Bill of Rights were included be ease the distrust of the Anti-Federalist that believed this as a far as Gun ownership "[W]hereas, to preserve
liberty, it is essential that
the whole body of the people
always possess arms, and be
taught alike, especially when
young, how to use them; nor
does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into
actual service on every occasion.
The mind that aims at a select militia,
must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when
we see many men disposed to
practice upon it, whenever they can prevail,no wonder true republicans
are for carefully guarding against it."


-- Federal Farmer (Antifederalist Letter, No.18, 25 January 1778)Reference: The Complete Anti-Federalist, Storing,ed., vol. 2 (342) The Founders Constitution
9. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Criminals by their very nature endevor to undercut these 'rights given us by the Creator..' With policing being non-existent at the founding of this nation and with SCOTUS declaring that the police don't have to respond to a call that leaves the individual up to self-preservation.



I know that you don't like this argument, but read the Federalist Papers. That by the way were authored by Madison (father of the Constitution), John Jay (1st Chief )Justice), and Hamilton.

Answer 3

Don't turn me off because i am pro-gun. I'll explain it as best i can. Yeah the whole militia thing.. whatever. I'm not even gonna talk about the constitution. now lets just say that one night you wake up and you are greeted by a stranger in your house who is armed, and pointing the gun at you and your family. If the intruder was going to kill you all, wouldn't you like to increase yours and your family's likelyhood of surviving, and have the bad guy get shot instead of you, the innocent civilian? This is one example where gun control is a bad thing.
Let's say that your local laws say that you cannot own a firearm. Does that mean that no one in your state has a firearm? no. Criminals can still get them very easily by doing it the way they usually do things... they break the law.
If you want to see what I'm talking about better, here is a great video that i recommend you watch if you want to know why people should have firearms, without just saying "it's our right"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=409_1176853869

Answer 4

Where to start, at the time of the writing of the Constitution there was no National Guard, the militia was comprised of a well armed populace so common sense would dictate that the writers of the Constitution had the general public in mind while penning that particular amendment.
Furthermore, blaming firearms for crime is somewhat akin to blaming pencils, pens or keyboards for misspelling which, in today's society of disclaiming personal responsibility is not surprising. When the Constitution was written people, not the tools they used, were held accountable for their actions .

Answer 5

The right to bear arms has several facets to its justification.

Even before perusing the US Constitution, there is a natural right to individual defense of self or others which is not dependent upon any document written by man. Weaponry, being integral to defense, is a necessary part of this natural right. The beasts of the field bear fangs and claws. Being endowed more with brains and less with brawn, man makes the tools for his defense and bears those.

Now, turning to the US Constitution, the very first thing to note is that the rights in the Bill of Rights aren’t a list of all of your rights you are entitled to and you have no more than that. Quite the contrary. The Bill of Rights simply affirms and discusses some of your innumerable rights, but you still retain all of the rest of your innumerable individual rights nonetheless. Amendment IX clarifies that distinctly: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” You have a natural right to individual defense of self or others and the tools of necessity for it. You retain it. It is not denied or disparaged. So affirms the Constitution of the US.

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. While liberty and property that are taken illegally (without due process of law) may be regained by means other than physical individual defense, the thing that many times protects life from being illegally deprived, by criminals or otherwise, is physical individual defense. This amendment affirms that my life may only be taken legally. Therefore, I have the right to defend my life from illegal attempts to deprive me of it, with such tools as are necessary for such defense.

The Second Amendment affirms the individual right to keep and bear arms. It is the second amendment among ten amendments concerning individual rights, commonly referred to en masse as “The Bill of Rights”. The phrase “the people” in it means the same thing as “the people” means in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments: individual citizens. In fact, the Tenth Amendment distinctly references the federal, collective, and individual entities as “the United States”, “the states”, and “the people”.

Answer 6

You are correct on the my rights argument. The second amendment does not provide or take away any rights to individuals. It simply recognizes that a free state can form an organized militia, read national guard, and arm the people in that militia.

Anybody who thinks they have a right to carry arms anywhere anytime should do this. Walk onto a California school yard carrying a loaded assault rifle. You will then be able to argue your second amendment right from jail all the way to the supreme court. And you will lose.

Answer 7

your quote is perfect, your reasoning is incomprehensible.

the fact is that the right to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed. the reasoning is that it is necessary for a free state to have a militia (of course) but the fact remains that it shall not be infringed.
i dont know how they could have said it more clearly, and there is no other context.
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Answer 8

Perhaps it is time to rethink the argument of individual rights vs the rights of the greater population. Society and behaviours have changed. Not very smart to continue on with what is not working.
I wish we had greater gun control in Canada. The countries that have strict control do not suffer the same kinds of tragic events in schools and public places.

Answer 9

If you are in the US, you are wrong. Read the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. It is written in clear and plain language. It is so un-ambiguous, the US Supreme Court has upheld the standard interpretation: citizens have the right to own and possess guns.

I believe we should own guns, for our own protection. Gun control does not work. There are still criminals using guns in places where gun controls exist.

Answer 10

Guns don't kill people! Idiots pulling the trigger do! Guns are for people that are registered,and with no felonies. Unfortunatly,the low lifes buy stolen ones,to rob and shoot people with them. Why should legal Americans have to suffer for other peoples ignorance?