gun rights should NOT be taken away.

I don't know how I feel on the issue. I don't think we should take the rights away , however I do think there should be some ground rules. For example, I think we should prosecute parents if they have guns and do not lock the guns up and a child gets ahold of the gun. I think although people have a right to own guns , they need to accept responsibility for their guns. So I voted not in favor , but I suppose I am really not oppsed as much as thinking there should be some rules and responsibility with gun ownership. I do think to take this right away will only cause more illegal guns and then we won't have record of the guns. Guns are going to be bought , so at least when they are bought legally there are records kept and guns are registered. However I do think people should be held accountable. I do not think a person with a criminal record (involving a gun or violence ) should be able to buy a gun. (maybe they can't I am not that informed of gun laws). Like I said parents should be held responsible if a child can gain acess to their guns.

I dunno, Hitler's speeches were pretty effective at killing people.

I just don't see how you can pick and choose which amendments you like, and which ones we could do without. How about the amendment about search and seizure, or the one dealing with private property?

In short, you start screwing with the Constitution in the name of "safety," and it won't end until they do away with YOUR favorite amendment.

Look what I say ion a debate round does not reflect my personal views. It's called debate and playing the devil's advocate. Look at my profile. What does it say I support about 2nd amendment?

But why would it be fought so much? It's not hard to get a hunting license, and people could respect the fact it's for one's own good.

Plus it's a compromise between dems and GOPs.

Why would free speech by a privilege. I have reasons why 2nd amendment should be. There is logic behind one and not the other. One kills people, the other doesn't.

Yeah, I read it. I can't believe someone from Texas wants to take away a Constitutional right, particularly gun ownership, and make it a PRIVILEGE. Sorry, but gun owners across the US would fight you tooth and nail on that one.

Again, perhaps we could make the exercise of free speech a privilege, subject to control by the government.

I wonder, have you read anything I posted above? I do not wish to remove the ability to own a gun. Simply making it harder to get a gun and make it a privilege.

"I said this for the sake of debate because the second-amendment can be, well, amended"

So can the First Amendment. Would you like that?

The Second Amendment was primarily created, not to allow people to have self-defense against criminals (although they have that right) but to protect an unarmed populace against a tyrannical government. I can't say with absolute certainty, but it's always been a position of MANY people that the placement of the amendment allowing citizens to own firearms (or weapons in general) is indicative as to how important the Founders thought this right was.

As to taking guns away from EVERYONE, that's a well-meaning but poorly-thought-out position. It hasn't stopped criminals in the UK from perpetrating an INCREASE in gun-related crime, because guns can be made (they've been making guns out of things like car antennas -- zip guns -- for decades) or smuggled in to those willing to pay the cash to accomplish that, and the reason that criminals are criminals is that they don't CARE about obeying laws. All this Pollyannaish hope that taking all the guns away would result in is to create a nation of sheep (law-abiding citizens) subject to being harvested by a subset of wolves (criminals). Might as well walk around with a target on my back and a sign that says "Please rob me."

"Look, I am a republican, supporter of the second-amendment, etc.
Please do not USE the second-amendment to say why we have the right to bear arms'

I said this for the sake of debate because the second-amendment can be, well, amended

Just think about this avidiun.

You say that "If we take away gun rights innocent people would be unarmed against intruders."

If we keep gun rights, guilty people would be able to hurt the innocent people. It would really even out and it does.

If we DON'T keep gun rights, then NEITHER side (presumably) has a gun, meaning no one is injured or dies and instead the intruder is penalized justly through a court of law.

To cody.
Guns are very easy to get even if you don't have a license or have evil intentions. Gun shows will sell guns to almost anyone. Even obtaining a license is not difficult, not much more so than obtaining a driver's license. These simple regulations are not stopping gang fights ending with gun deaths. They are not stopping kids from pulling guns out of their parent's drawer and accidentally injuring or killing someone.

Capt.Herp.
I agree with your statement that about the Bill of Rights. I still don't support the second amendment, but what you are saying in response to Cody is true.

Excuse me, Cody, but in Arizona you don't have to get a license to own any legal firearm at all. Where did you get your information?

I can go downtown tomorrow, if I have the cash, and buy guns all day with no "license." You better do a bit of research.

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. There is no Bill of Privileges.