when i say private i dont mean police or FBI i just mean citizens of the United States
2007-11-13 12:22:30 · 18 answers · asked by thibhaa 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
NO. I agree with the 2nd Amendment. Police and FBI are NOT private anything. The government is supposed to answer to the citizens. ONLY private gun ownership provides a means to insist on the answers.
2007-11-13 12:29:33 · answer #1 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. There's always a problem with a ban like this one. All of the people who didn't plan on doing illegal acts with their guns would get rid of them. However, all of the people who plan on using their guns to break the law will just ignore the ban and really won't care. All the ban will cause is a disarmament of the people who didn't plan on breaking the law in the first place.
2007-11-13 12:28:57 · answer #2 · answered by Razmig 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hell no! Guns have legitimate civilian uses such as for hunting and self-defense, and banning guns won't stop crime, either only the criminals will have guns, and the civilians won't be able to defend themselves, or criminals will use other weapons.
Situation number 1 has happened in Australia, and situation 2 has happened in England, shootings are extremely rare, but stabbings are common.
2007-11-13 12:29:35 · answer #3 · answered by Dr. Ray Langston 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. It should happen right after the crime rate goes to zero, and there's no need for a military or law enforcement agency, so the average citizen is the last person to disarm. But there should be an allowance for those of us who hunt with pistols so we can retain them for that purpose. If you think such a thing should happen sooner, then you've missed entirely the basis of American political philosophy.
2007-11-13 12:36:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Of course not. History has proven again and again that when the people are disarmed, the government has almost total control.
Also, it is my responsibility and my right to defend myself.
Passing a law doesn't stop criminals. That's why they are by definition criminals. Why would you want to put me at risk?
If you are truly interested in the subject, and are searching for truth, not opinion may I suggest you search for a book written by John Lott, Professor of Law at the University of Chicago. It contains facts, not fiction, and it will provide you a wealth of accurate information.
2007-11-13 12:46:09 · answer #5 · answered by Partisanshipsux 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. There are some guns that should be banned, like Full auto AK47s, but not handguns. There are a lot more reckless people with automobiles(which kill way more people each year) than guns. Should we ban them, too?
2007-11-13 12:27:54 · answer #6 · answered by blibityblabity 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nope
2007-11-13 12:26:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No it should not be banned. The places with the strictest gun control also have higher crime rates.
2007-11-13 12:26:36 · answer #8 · answered by .. 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. Crooks will get guns anyway, illegally. But honest men will have no way to defend themselves.
2007-11-13 12:26:24 · answer #9 · answered by hq3 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think that the founding fathers wrote the second amendment with militias in mind, meaning that either the states have the right to have them or that only militias, which to mean would be the military of some form of military like the police, should be permitted to own weapons. I don't think they meant for everyone to have firearms. (And I'm a conservative.)
2007-11-13 12:27:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋