The second amendment says the right to bear arms. However, I think it's flawed. If there's no gun at all, except in the army, things would be totally better.
First, there would be no mortality since all guns is taken away.
Second, no violence on TV and movies.
I think this prevents a lot of situations.
2007-07-10
16:57:00
·
15 answers
·
asked by
junsumoney
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Law & Ethics
What I'm saying is that if it's illegal, it would be so much better. Also, I want to tell me your opinions, not bi*ch about how stupid this is. tell me how we can make those "coons and goonies" give up the guns. Besides, drugs should be illegal. What you would rather it legal?
2007-07-10
17:06:36 ·
update #1
What I meant by no mortality is that all deaths based on guns would be zero. Except in the war and illegal mafia people who smuggle guns in.
2007-07-10
18:08:25 ·
update #2
I'd be careful, mate. The NRA will be knocking on your door soon. And no one dares to annoy the NRA. Biggest bullies in the US.
I particularly liked the crass effort of having a rally in Colorado a few weeks after kids shot their classmates at Columbine High...
2007-07-12 08:56:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by Beastie 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
I am pro choice for the same reason that I'm pro second amendment. I find the consequences of those positions less disgusting and scary than a government that would usurp those rights by force. While I find the prospect of destroying a fetus in the womb reprehensible, I would not want to live in a nation where a woman is forced to have a baby at the point of a gun. When it comes down to it, everyone has their own opinion on the value of a fetus at various stages of development. Some people believe that as soon as the gamete is formed there is a soul there too that needs protecting. Others believe that once a mother decides she doesn't want a baby that organism becomes a parasite feeding off her body. And, obviously, there is an entire spectrum in between. With such vastly dissenting opinions from anyone you meet, is it right to legislate one way or the other? What makes one opinion more valid than the next? I applaud your for applying rational thought to the issue. And I believe that you are correct. Making abortion completely illegal will only result in increased hanger sales. Kevin, why don't you ever choose a best answer? You always let it go into voting which is weak. Do you even read the answers you receive?
2016-04-01 08:23:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Shirley 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
So, your going to ignore thousands of years of human history, where the state has absolute power over the populace. Where a government has no check against it, there is an inevitable revocation of freedoms.
Then there are the 20 plus decisions from the Supreme Court has declared the police do not have to respond to a call.
The first recorded murder was with a rock. Any object can be used as a weapon.
Another thing, your blaming an inanimate object. An object that has to abide by the laws of physics, in other words it can't even load itself.
The average response time of the Los Angeles Police Department is 15 minutes. If a person's throat is slashed they can bleed out in less than a minute.
2007-07-10 22:03:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by .45 Peacemaker 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Hmm...
Well, making them illegal will simply make them more valuable, like it did with controlled substances.
However, America's so-called "democratic" constitution NEEDS a change.
The Second Amendment was written when... Oh, a couple of centuries ago?
Lets see... Two centuries ago, they had guns that took like, a minute to load (soldiers could do it in fifteen seconds though), and couldn't be trusted to actually HIT anything at a range greater than twenty yards.
Why did soldiers line up and fire in the olden days instead of what we do today? Because with those guns, the only way you're going to score a hit is if you fire like six hundred shots at once at the same target...
Now, compare a one-shot, minute-to-load pistol to a sub-machinegun.
Compare a long-barrel rifle that can't be trusted to hit anything to an M21 sniper rifle.
Get the idea?
Oh, and I don't think crazy people should have access to handguns either.
Like on the Simpsons...
Gunsmith: Well, it says here on your record that you're mentally ill, and a danger to the public!
Homer: Awwww
Gunsmith: Don't worry! That just limits you to ten handguns.
Homer: Woo-hoo!
2007-07-10 17:11:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by CanadianFundamentalist 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
In a perfect world, the gun would never have been invented or used to kill other people. This world is far, far from perfect. If gun ownership by private citizens was made illegal, only law abiding citizens would follow the law and give up their guns. The criminals, who probably have unregistered weapons, would not.
Also, people own guns for other reasons. Some people like to hunt, some need to protect themselves or their property from animals, some people collect them, some like target shooting. There are many ways to harm someone. Guns are only one method.
2007-07-10 17:24:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
There would be no mortality? Are you stupid or just retarded? More people are killed each year in automobile accidents each year than are in gun related accidents. Guns are not the only way to kill people. You can kill someone with your bare hands. So are we going to start taking peoples hands away?
Making guns illegal will do nothing. Drugs are illegal need I say more?
2007-07-10 17:31:37
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Keep in mind that people kill people, not guns. (1) If you take away the weapon, people will just find another means for violence. (2) With the proper tools you can make your own guns. (3) The majority of the people on the streets shooting people didn't buy the guns legally anyway.
There will always be a market, therefore, there will always be a supply.
2007-07-10 17:06:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
0⤋
You are absolutely right. There would be no mortality "since all guns is taken away". We would all be immortal. We would continue to procreate and never die. We will go from a world population of 6 billion to 600 billion within a few years.
Oh, wait, but there will still be bombs, bats, knives, and poisons. We should make those illegal as well. And then cancer, heart disease, and diabetes should be illegalized. Hmmm...fire kills people too. Lightening kills people. Sheesh, I think we need to find paradise and live there.
2007-07-10 17:10:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by http://www.wrightlawnv.com 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
Registered gun users use their guns for these things: hunting, skeet shooting, rifle practice, and the extremely rare instance of self defense.
People who buy guns illegally use their guns for these things: gun crimes.
People managed to murder and rob witout guns for most of humanity - even if the criminals couldn't get guns, they'd go back to stabbings and beatings as the main way. Violence is as old as life itself. It's not just a modern phenomenon.
The law isn't so much a deterrent to the 1% of humanity that are criminals as it is a recourse to the 99% who aren't.
2007-07-10 17:09:14
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
No. I don't believe it would be better to make guns illegal because it just makes it harder for the honest person to defend themselves. Illegal or not, criminals get guns no matter what the laws are. My opinion of course.
2007-07-10 17:12:05
·
answer #10
·
answered by Wutz it worth 2 ya? 6
·
3⤊
0⤋