training and license so that the right to bear arms becomes the norm.This would also silence the fence sitters(myself included)who are so scared of guns that we become anti-gun. Your thoughts please...Thanks
2007-10-17 07:34:49 · 15 answers · asked by Raymond C 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
We have a right to bear arms, we do not have a right to be given free weapons. Most people who go out and buy a gun do so after making sure they are ready for the responsibility for it. Making sure I purchase my weapon and train myself to use it, I am showing that I am prepared for the responsibility of owning a firearm. (Hopefully that makes sense).
We have a right to freedom of speech, but that does not mean that the gov't is going to give us a free printing press and training to use it. If I want to get my opinion out there, I am responsible for finding a way of getting it out there. I can type up a flyer (on the computer I purchased) and copy it (on the copier I purchased or at Kinko's) and then I can either hand it out myself on a street corner or hire someone to do it for me.
So, basically we have rights, but we have to take control of our rights if we want to exercise them.
2007-10-17 07:41:54 · answer #1 · answered by halestrm 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It is a RIGHT to bear arms. It isn't a REQUIREMENT.
How would giving everyone a gun silence fence sitters? This would arm a bunch of crazy people that wouldn't otherwise even think to get a gun.
2007-10-17 07:55:22 · answer #2 · answered by Wanda 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
States are perfectly free to do this -- that's the issue of the "militia" clause, and if states want to arm every adult -- they can.
The 2nd Amendment is one of the few (along with the 7th and part of the 5th) that only limits the Federal govt -- because it was never incorporated against the states -- so states are free to prohibit guns, or give guns to everyone, or anything in between.
2007-10-17 07:51:09 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because it's so....arbitrary. Why not have government issued pen and paper to allow "free speech"? Plus, there's so much evidence showing that guns are more often used in accidents, suicides, etc than actually defending oneself that it would be senseless to provide these weapons until we were absolutely certain that they'd benefit and not harm society. If you're unsure of what the long-term effects of a certain drug are, would you start taking it anyway, just to find out definitively one way or another? Seems dangerous to play with fire like that.
2007-10-17 07:45:57 · answer #4 · answered by Lauren 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd settle for these 18 year olds to simply gain an actual understanding of the importance of the second amendment. the purpose of the amendment was to give the people the power to protect their rights from their own government. our founding fathers knew well what happens to a society when the government has all the weapons. It would be refreshing to see young people embracing their rights. unfortunately neither popular "culture" nor the educational system offer much in this regard. sadly; rims, bling, and benjamins are more important than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
2007-10-17 07:55:03 · answer #5 · answered by ghotstfeller 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I really don't like the idea of every 18 year old kid getting a government issued gun, I think the 2nd amendment is there to help us feel more empowered in being a part of our own safety... but I like the process we have now to get guns, if anything it should be more difficult and tedious to get a gun
2007-10-17 07:41:51 · answer #6 · answered by Looking for the REAL answer! 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Works for me but guaranteeing something is one thing and accepting it is another, each is an individual and if you feel that you don't want the gun or the right to bear arms that's fine, but don't take it from the others that do (me)!
2007-10-17 07:41:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well let's put it this way. (Never happen, but what if). The majority of those who live in America are honest, law abiding, decent people who want a decent life and to raise kids to have a better one. What if, the airlines had issued TASERS to every passenger on boarding. do you think the highjackers would have suceeded on Sept 11-with 300 armed citizens on every plane? (Tasers cause bullets tend to depressurize cabins). If a responsbably trained principal had been trained in firearms use and a rifle racked at school would the death toll at Columbine been higher than the two perps? It would seem to me the police can't be everywhere to protect us--and the laws seem to bend over backwards for the criminal element. So myself--armed citizens of decent moral character--trained--make me rest easy. In Texas we have a concealed weapons permits. Many women in texas carry a piece in their purses.
2007-10-17 07:44:59 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
"training and license" means government control. If a government has power to grant licenses it also has the right to
deny it. This would be an easy way to ban ownership. For example the government could charge a fee for the license and make it so high no one could afford one. Then you could fail anyone that takes the test.
2007-10-17 07:44:32 · answer #9 · answered by Philip L 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because not every person has connon sence or just sane.But of course u cant use it on some one trying to steal things from ur house because the can sue you .Sucks but it's nice to have in case
2007-10-17 08:20:43 · answer #10 · answered by I luv pgons 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋