Amazon.com Widgets
  • The right to bear arms stems from the very right to live

    I personally think that an unarmed society is a vulnerable society to any kind of threat, both foreign and domestic. Our own country wouldn't even exist if our ancestors hadn't decided to take up arms and fight a foreign, oppressive government. Your life and the lives of the ones you love are extremely precious and I don't think that the government should have the right to take away the means of defense to law abiding citizens. It would be like stating that your life or the life of your wife or husband or sons ecc. Are not even worth fighting for when you are threatened. If someone enters your home armed with a baseball bat, wouldn't you want something with which to defend yourself and, more importantly, the lives of those you love? Relying solely on the police is not the right solution, not because they don't do their jobs, but because it is phisically impossible for them to get to the crime scene in the same moment you are calling them for help. In those few minutes that it takes for the police to get to you, you may be already dead or, even worse, your loved ones may already be dead... And you didn't do anything. You are your own line of defense. It's better to have something and not need it than to need something and not have it. If a law abiding citizen couldn't purchase a weapon the price to pay may just be too much.

  • I support the fact that there pros when it comes to guns

    We need guns. With the world that we live in right now you don't know if you'll make it the next day. Its either survival or death in this world. And guns will help us survive. Remember guns don't make who we are. We make the gun and suffer if needed. Its common sense for the people who disagree.

  • We need guns to defend our selves

    We need guns to defend our selves. Guns save lives.Com and go to browse stories. They have over 1 thousand stories of times people have used guns to defend them selves and others. From home invasions to Burglaries and rape attempts. Guns clearly save more lives than they endanger. That's all Ill say.

  • Responsible gun ownership is a boone to society.

    A law-abiding and armed populace is not a dangerous one, the problem is that some who own guns are irresponsible or lack caution and this is what needs to be addressed. Law-abiding and armed citizens are not a problem and disarming them will not make society any safer by banning gun ownership.

  • Yes, because these guns are a right.

    We have the right to own a gun and should be able to. However, I understand that a lot of people see the dangerous and potentially deadly cons that exist with the pros of protection in regards to guns. If you use it for self-defense and keep it locked up, it is fine.

  • The pros of gun ownership outweigh the cons.

    The pros of gun ownership outweigh the cons. The biggest pro in gun ownership is the right for citizens to revolt if they are stuck living under a tyrannical government. The cons of gun ownership are largely based on isolated outbursts of psychopathic violence, but people who go on murder sprees can use other means besides guns to carry out their massacres.

  • What are the pros?

    America is a much safer place for violent crime than the media makes it out to be, which does not necessarily mean that gun ownership is a positive thing or a deterrent against crime so much as that it means that except for hunting and sport, gun ownership is pretty much pointless.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.