how are gun bans not trading freedom for security?

Answer 1

Good question.
I guess because Libs favor gun control, or gun elimination from our country.
The gov't will protect us.

Answer 2

It is trading freedom--a Constitutionally-granted one, at that--for security. However, the security is a little less than perfect. You rely on a government service (law enforcement) for protection instead of being able to protect yourself from harm. According to DoJ statistics, crime is rising and there are actually less police officers now then fifty years ago. Criminals don't care about a gun-ban, and the only affect it has on them is that it ensures THEIR safety. Personally, I'd rather own a gun, then pray a police officer can show up in time.

It also protects anyone with overt tyrannical ambition from completely doing away with the Constitution and imposing his/her will upon the people. As the saying goes, "an armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject." People complain about all of the rights and freedoms being trampled upon by the Bush Administration today, could you imagine what would happen if there were no "right to bear arms"? The least of your worries would be "Scooter" Libby's prison sentence commutation.

Answer 3

You are correct. This is one of the issues that I swing over to the right side to defend.

It could also be argued that you are not even trading this for security, but trading a freedom for LESS security. Do I want to live in a country where only the criminals and government has guns? I dont think so. You never know what the world might be like 100 years from now. Lets not take away a layer of defense from our descendants.

Answer 4

I personally can't see any way that gun bans aren't traded freedom for security, thats the whole point for the 2nd amendment, to ensure the protection of our freedoms from anyone including our own government, gun restrictions are okay because they make it more difficult for those who would use guns wrongly to get them, but to outright ban guns to the general public would crack the already assaulted foundation of the constitution.

Answer 5

I'm a Lib who is extremely opposed to gun-bans. I think they are doing exactly what the question asker states, trading freedom for security. I don't have problem with restrictions on guns, after all, its only stupid to give guns to known violent criminals, but law abiding citizens have a right to self defense.
And yes I know that the right to bear private weapons is not protected by the constitution, but as was said in a supreme court ruling, neither is the right to own weapons one which is dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.


And to those who keep citing the 2nd amendment.
It does not protect your right to private ownership of weapons. It protects your right to join a well-organized city or county militia wich would then own the weapons.
Like I said above, though, not all of the rights that exist are written down in the Constitution.

Answer 6

People who support bans on guns believe that it's okay to trade this freedom for what they perceive as security. But will we be more secure? If we can't fight back how does that make us more secure?

My question to them is:
If we start taking away our constitutional rights one by one, where does it end? And why should I be forced to give up my gun? The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution says that I have a right to bear arms. I'll give up my 2nd Amendment rights if you give up your 1st Amendment rights. Deal?

Answer 7

No. The "gun situation" isn't a real situation and by no ability became. The rigtt wing, following their familiar extremist trend, began damanding an end to any form of gun regulation, registration, and so on. some years in the past. the subject is settled with the help of the very maximum suitable court selection final week. The court reaffirmed the rigtht of regulation-abiding voters to own weapons, certainly. That became by no ability incredibly at situation. yet additionally they made it sparkling that the states have each and every stunning to alter possession of firearms. attempt examining the comments the judges wrote (incredibly of what some talk coach host says). all the judges have been in actuality in contract. maximum folk/minority split had nothhing to do with no count if individuals have an exquisite to own weapons. It became disagreement over technicalities approximately the place the line between regulation and prohibition. it incredibly is important, actual and the court needless to say is divided on that element. yet no longer on the easy theory: REGULATED gun possession is constitutional. base line: the stunning lost. era.

Answer 8

It is trading in your right to own a firearm, the freedom that right represents, and the security that the weapon could have provided you.

-The right to bear arms was a freedom put in place by the bill of rights so that one could defend himself and his family, not only from the dregs of society but from their own government.

-90% of crime involving firearms are from illegal weapons. A criminal that is willing to use a stolen gun will still commit violence regardless of the means he uses.

Answer 9

Gun bans do not equal security, as a matter of fact just the opposite. Criminals will get their guns with a gun ban or not. It will be the civilians left with sticks and stones to defend themselves when faced with a gun toting criminal!

Answer 10

criminals are the reasons for the talk of gun bans. if you give up the right to own guns you sacifice the ability to defend you, your family and your home. i would say it is the reason we have not been invaded by a foreign country. i own three and have yet to kill, mame or rob anyone and if guns were banned, the criminals would still have them. so security would be worse.