Should private citizens be allowed to legally own guns? |
It protects our country
Not even Hitler invaded countries that allowed their citizens to privately own guns. He knew he'd be fighting everyone and not just the military, in which case he wouldn't win. So why allow civilians to own guns? Because the world is a shifty place, and you do not know who is your best friend or your worst enemy. If enemies want a piece of the United States, hopefully they are as intelligent as Hitler and won't invade a country in which each individual will protect himself, and if they still try, they won't win. Simply, there are too many American citizens to be defeated by one invading army.
Posted by: AnonymousThe benefits outweigh the harm.
Guns must be kept legal.
Guns can have negative and tragic effects, but the benefits of firearms far outweigh the harm caused by them. The right to bear arms is not just to defend your home. It is also to defend yourself from the government should it become tyrannical. This was the original purpose of the Second Amendment as it states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the very reason why semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 must be kept legal. If you think that America's government cannot become one of tyranny, you need to man up and face the facts. It has happened to many other countries, and it can happen to ours too.
Many of the individuals supporting gun control do not want to see more deaths occur because of firearms. No one likes death, but this is not the way to approach this situation. To assist in lowering the crimes involving guns, better background checks looking for a history of criminal activity and mental health issues should be made. Also, if you think that police officers (please take note that I highly respect them) should take care of all of the criminals, think again. Police officers respond to situations after they have already started, and many times ended. In life-and-death situations, seconds can make a huge difference. Although no national average response time for police officers exists, it varies across the country from a less than four minute to thirty-five minute wait. A lot can happen in a four minute wait when there is a lunatic running around with a gun. The average response time for an armed civilian, however, is five seconds. Do the math.
No amount of gun control or gun-free zones will stop individuals with an intent on hurting others. In fact, if you were a crazy person with a gun, where would you go to shoot people? WHERE NO ONE CAN SHOOT BACK! Also known as gun-free zones. No matter what, evil will still exist in this crazy world of ours. Because of this, we should have the right to protect ourselves.
Citizens would have no self defense.
Criminals would either ignore the laws, or find other weapons. Guns don't kill-people do. It is also against the second amendment. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You already need a permit for a gun. There are many regulations. Hunters also need guns.
Posted by: AnonymousYou guys don't see the good thing about having guns.
All of you have been saying "oh virginal tech shootings or columbine never would have happened." What about the people who get guns illegally? The government can't stop that. But if all those other students had guns, the shooter would have probably been less likely to open fire. Because, if a student heard a shot or saw somebody being shot, his first reaction may be to get help, but if he's being shot at, his first reaction would be to fire back and neutralize his target and all would be avoided. Lord bless those students' souls.
Posted by: AnonymousNeed a gun? False arguement
The argument that "no one NEEDS an AK-47" is completely flawed in a free society, and here's why. I own an ak-47 as well as several high capacity magazines, and no, I don't actually need them. In truth, no civilian needs an ak-47 or an AR-15. Just the same as no one actually NEEDS A corvette, or a smartphone, or a playstation, or a big screen tv, or a guitar, or designer clothes, or a movado watch. No one NEEDS an iPod or an iPad, or cosmetic surgery, or a set of golf clubs.
BUT in a free country, responsible law abiding people should be allowed to spend their disposable income on whatever they like. Today you want the government to take away guns, but what will you say when they tell you that you have to surrender your Cadillac escalade because it's inefficient? What about the government tells you that you're not permitted to buy a 6,000 square foot house because since you're single with no kids that you dont actually NEED that much space? You've been saving for a Harley for years, but when the time comes the government prohibits you from buying it because since you can't transport your wife and 3 kids on it, you don't actually NEED it.
Be careful what you wish for people. Start down the path of limiting freedoms and it's only a matter of time before the government has us all wearing the same clothes, driving the same cars, eating the same food and living in identical shelters... Because that's what they deemed we actually NEEDED.Posted by: Anonymoussome guys are just crazy
just a month ago someone walked into a movie theater and shot almost 16 people.what if that was YOUR family member? what if that was YOU? people should check for guns and knives. THEY ARE DANGEROUS!!!!
Posted by: penguins102We'll be safer if we can own guns.
A public that is armed is safer than a public that is unarmed. If every person is trained to use a firearm, how will criminals cope? Criminals of all sorts love defenseless victims. Let's not be victims! Guns save lives in self defense every day. Just don't expect to see that on the news!
Posted by: AnonymousGod said
Sell your stuff and buy a sword. Are you stupid? Or just expect someone else to protect you? We should enforce the death penalty for more crimes, then there would be less crime. Less criminals = less crime. Don't be a sheep. Defend yourself. Stop waiting for someone else to do something for you instead of doing it yourself.
Posted by: AnonymousRemember Hurricane Katrina?
The police went home to protect their own families. Unfortunately we are still on a planet with people that take advantage of situations. Up here in NY during Hurricane Sandy there were isolated cases of looting even in the suburbs where I live. The police were too busy to help because they were manning the gas stations. We were about 2 days away from civil unrest. It was quite scary but I was prepared. I keep a shot gun with 3 non-lethal shells loaded and 3 lethal shells behind them. I don't to ever want to use it but if I must I will. When I'm not home all firearms are locked and unloaded in a safe. And I have a security system.
Posted by: ChillyWillyThe Constitution protects our right to own guns.
The constitution does not grant any rights to citizens. It only protects them. There is no way that the constitution could possible list all the rights that a citizen has naturally. The constitution is there to protect our rights only. Part of your natural right is the right to defend yourself. That right is an absolute right.
Posted by: AnonymousLegitimate gun use is NOT the problem!
Armed rebellion is the language and action of a traitor. Such people including the NRA are criminals! Read the Rolling Stone Magazine article on the NRA and the Time magazine Gun Control issue. Also we have allowed gun promoters to turn guns into a DANGEROUS FAD with pink guns for the kids etc.. I grew up with guns and learned right away they are not toys.
Posted by: AnonymousThe wording is piss poor.
The constitution does not GRANT any rights to citizens. It only protects them. There is no way that the constitution could possible list all the rights that a citizen has naturally. The constitution is there to protect our rights only. Part of your natural right is the right to defend yourself. That right is an absolute right.
Posted by: Freedom1ManYes, I think private citizens should be allowed to legally own a gun.
Because a gun could save someone's life. If a bear was trying to eat you, would you just let it eat you or would you shoot the dam? I would shoot it, I know that, but I wouldn't shoot it with a pistol. I would shoot it with a twelve-gauge shotgun.
Posted by: AnonymousOf course!
If we did not allow guns then the people who follow the law would be defenseless. The ones who break the law will find a way to get gun just like druggies find ways to get drugs. All this will do if give the law-breakers the upper hand, the victim will have no defense.
Posted by: AnonymousLook at Chicago...Australia, England
These places have all outlawed guns (Chicago in their city limits), and thereafter banning guns their violent crime rates jumped dramatically! I love how these liberals are so naive in thinking if we ban guns altogether, the bad guys won't have them either...WRONG! They will! The problem is, the good guys won't any longer! We fixate on horrific tragedies like Newtown (and it was horrific), but what about putting a retired law enforcement officer or retired military at each school at around $15/hour. And just have Obama layoff a few if his unnecessary czars that make around $150k-$300K per year. You see, the govt. and the liberal media don't tell you how many lives we're saved with private citizens owning guns. Look that one up in your state! Also, there wasn't 1 killing in Newtown with an assault rifle, but the liberal govt. And media are HOT to take them on the emotional strings left from Newtown. Make no mistake, the ONLY reason we haven't been invaded on our home soil (except Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks), is because of the privately armed U.S. citizen! That has always been an intimating fact to our enemies. And don't think with the same naive attitude the liberal govt And and media have by thinking we don't still have enemies! California will be the first poster child if and when they officially abolish all gun ownership rights, and our forefathers that fought the English tyranny will turn in their graves! The U.S. population needs to understand that when the govt removes rights, they seldomly come back. There are feasible ways to do better to protect the honest and law-abiding citizens and prevent mentally ill and criminals from buying guns.
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely yes!
The US was founded on the idea of being able to defend enemies foreign and domestic. Taking citizen's right to own firearms would be going against this idea and slapping our founding fathers in the face. Sadly there are many liberal forces out there that cannot see that an armed community is a safe community.
Posted by: mannequin2nd amendment
Clearly it states it in the Constitution that guns are not just for self defense in the home but also to protect yourself from radical government institution. The most prolific countries calling to disarm US are countries like china who disarmed their citizens in order to commit mass genocide. This is all a UN controlled brainwashed groups plan to disarm US in order to take over with their globalist government ideas one nation one monetary unit global
Posted by: AnonymousWe as Americans should be allowed to carry guns becuase they have saved lives.
It is our right in the constitution, which cannot be changed, and it is just our way of life, for in the past, we have saved lives and won our freedoms with them. We should be allowed to own them, as long as we know when not to use them.
Posted by: AnonymousAnything that kills should be banned
Should we ban cars and alcohol as well? 33,000 dead because of drunk driving in 2010. 9,400 gun related homicides in the U.S. in 2011. A gun is a simple tool, how it is used is the problem. The U.S. is ravaged with sociopolitical problems that cause this type of violence to erupt. If someone wants to murder they will be able to do it whether guns are legally available or not. 2500 deaths come from knifes, better ban that handy kitchen utensil as well.
Posted by: AnonymousThey're gonna own them no matter what
There is always going to be someone out there with a gun. You can take away their right to own it and they will just rebel and own it illegally. And having it illegally could lead to retaliation to the fact that they no longer have the right to legally own it. Either way there is going to be guns in the world.
Posted by: AnonymousWe should be able to own guns.
We should be able to own guns because it is a big part of our freedom! It was Hitler who said, "To conquer a nation, disarm it's citizens". We need to wake up and see what the government is doing. I will not now or in the future give up my guns!
Posted by: AnonymousWe the People Want our Freedom and our Liberty . Find a way to Ban Crimes and Criminals without punishing the Innocent!
Why make legal gun owners criminals? Innocent people are suffering with the Laws currently in force because you have NOT learned that they DO NOT work! I think criminal activity will increase if there are more restrictions imposed on Americans who currently own firearms ...It looks like you need more time to figure out HOW because America does NOT agree that these restrictions will work to do anything for the issue of violence in this country ... Please address THE REAL PROBLEM!!
Posted by: ls763Guns must be kept legal.
Guns can have negative and tragic effects, but the benefits of firearms far outweigh the harm caused by them. The right to bear arms is not just to defend your home. It is also to defend yourself from the government should it become tyrannical. This was the original purpose of the Second Amendment as it states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the very reason why semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 must be kept legal. If you think that America's government cannot become one of tyranny, you need to man up and face the facts. It has happened to many other countries, and it can happen to ours too. Many of the individuals supporting gun control do not want to see more deaths occur because of firearms. No one likes death, but this is not the way to approach this situation. To assist in lowering the crimes involving guns, better background checks looking for a history of criminal activity and mental health issues should be made. Also, if you think that police officers (please take note that I highly respect them) should take care of all of the criminals, think again. Police officers respond to situations after they have already started, and many times ended. In life-and-death situations, seconds can make a huge difference. Although no national average response time for police officers exists, it varies across the country from a less than four minute to thirty-five minute wait (a lot can happen in a four minute wait when there is a lunatic running around with a gun). The average response time for an armed civilian, however, is five seconds. Do the math. No amount of gun control or gun-free zones will stop individuals with an intent on hurting others. In fact, if you were a crazy person with a gun, where would you go to shoot people? WHERE NO ONE CAN SHOOT BACK! Also known as gun-free zones. No matter what, evil will still exist in this crazy world of ours. Because of this, we should have the right to protect ourselves.
Posted by: AnonymousResponsibility
It is our right to bear arms. It is our personal responsibility to be properly trained to use them respectfully and diligently. Time and time again it has been proven when citizens arm themselves, crimes go down. For the protection of ourselves, our neighbors and our nation we must bear arms.
Posted by: AnonymousThe bad guys are going to get their guns one way or another.
A gun has never killed anyone. A bullet has never killed anyone. It is the person behind the gun. We need to focus less on WHAT killed them than on WHO killed them. I think that if a person takes a mental test, let's say every two years, to own a gun then the death rates will go down. Plus, banning guns isn't going to stop the bad guys, only the good guys, the ones who follow the laws. If they ban guns, I doubt the union will stay like it is. Someone is going to secede.
Posted by: AnonymousStrictly for future freedoms.
Aside from the fact that its a right, I believe that history has proven that once that right has been forfeited by law bidding citizens, things get worse not better. I have been a marksman all my life, not much of a hunter because I don't like killing animals unless I'm starving. But hitting a target the size of an apple at 300 yards. Priceless
Posted by: AnonymousIt is my right!
The 2nd amendment was written a long time ago and things are very different now but we still need to protect ourselves, our families, and our property! I'd love to see a report on the amount of armed robberies or invasions in the past year that had been ended by someone protecting themselves and or others using the 2nd amendment. I wonder if that number would be higher than the four times our president has spoken after a mass shooting? Those things don't make national news, but if they did would that change your mind on the subject? I am ready to strap my weapon onto myself if it means I could keep my children safe. These guns are already out there and if you think the "bad" guys won't continue to use them even after the "good" guys can't - you are mistaken. You think someone who is willing to kill a women or a child will hand in their weapons because it is the law? I don't! Drugs are illegal too and you see how well that issue is being contained. Whether you like it or not evil is not going away, if anything it will only continue to grow. In the end there will only be two things right and wrong - good and evil. These things are not material. Taking away or limiting material things will not make them disappear. Evil is not going anywhere.
Posted by: AnonymousHistory says yes
Until you look at history and learn from it you will continue to repeat the same mistakes.
If every gun in the entire world were destroyed then yes I would be all for it. However, this is, currently, an impossibility. To take guns from people is not only unconstitutional but also an invasion of privacy. It's the reason that it was put into the constitution. A government with too much power is a totalitarian system from which there is no appeal. Just look at what happened in Mexico. No guns for people and the drug cartels run the country with guns! History is on my side with this one and until you do the research for yourself instead of spewing what the government tells you then your argument is void to me. I neglect your argument because it is based entirely on faith alone, faith that your government could never hurt you, and could never and would never do anything unless it was for your protection.Posted by: AnonymousLearn the definition of Assault Rifle.
An Assault-Rifle is a rifle that has selective fire. Meaning it can be selected to fire in automatic, bursts, or single shot. These weapons used recently, like the AR-15, are not military grade. They are just a basic rifle that is able to be fired from the hip. Assault-Rifles are already banned in the U.S. without a very expensive, and difficult license to obtain.
With that being said, look at Switzerland, and then look at the U.K. Both have complete different gun laws, and both have very different crime statistics. Little hint, the one with little gun laws and open carrying is allowed have lower crime stats. An armed society is a safe society.Posted by: bs_8192nd amendment
Any populace needs firearms to keep a the possibility of a tyrannical government at bay.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.Posted by: AnonymousIt is necessary for freedom
The absolute truth is that you cannot be a free country with an unarmed electorate. Restrictions should be in place and enforced, but you cannot take away the right to protect oneself and still call your people free. There is no tragedy like an entire country living under tyranny; we have plenty of examples of the truth around the world.
Posted by: AnonymousCriminals don't exactly follow the rules.
Banning handguns is not going to help much. It's only going to prevent good citizens from purchasing handguns; however, a law is not going to prevent criminals from having them. I believe the law would only hurt us because it prevents civilized people from protecting themselves when criminals threaten them. We need and have the right to own a handgun.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.
Most gun fights end with a gun. Obviously. What I meant was if the bad guy has a gun and he's shooting at somebody/something the violence is usually stopped with another individual with a gun. The Sandy Hook shooting was stopped with a gun. In May of 2002 there was a fight in Las Vegas, Nevada. A man was defending himself and shot his attacker. Without that man having that gun he could have died. What would you do if you had children and you put them to bed and somebody broke in their room? 911 wouldn't be on your mind at the time. You wouldn't even have the time to call them if you wanted your kids. You'd turn to your gun. There is a robber in your house trying to take your kids. Just get your gun. It's a lot faster than having to call the police and wait for them to get there because while you're waiting on the police that kidnapper is already going to be gone with your children. And what if some random person attacks you out of nowhere. We have the right to bear arms! And that shouldn't be taken away from us.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Great Equalizer
Did you know that more people are killed by clubs, hammers, and bats each year than by guns? Knives and even bare hands(choking) are also a factor in many killings. No one will ever be completely safe so why not use guns to our advantage as a great equalizer that we can use for self-defense. Self-defense with a gun does NOT always involve fatal shooting. Merely firing near an intruder in your home (for example) or even holding up your gun can be threatening enough to frighten the them away. Owning a gun is and always should be a fundamental right. There is no question of that.
Posted by: doriannabrownthe second admendment
They should be able to own guns because there are many uses of a gun. One of the main uses is hunting. If we cant be able to use guns for hunting then the animals will overpopulate. Another reason is for competition. There are different types of calibers used for different type of competitions. My final statement is, some of the guns people have are for show and put out of comission.
Posted by: gnight223Protection
People like old women need to be able to protect themselves.
Posted by: MaiseyYes, private citizens should be allowed to legally own guns, because it is practically a sacred right.
The ability to own a gun is a nearly sacred right because, if the government goes wrong, it is up to the people to protect themselves. This is what we learned, as a society, during the American Revolution, and it is not one iota less important in today's society. The right to own a gun might be restricted for good reasons, but never taken away. If only we had a government that might never lie about a person's reputation in order to take a gun away, we might have a better society for everyone.
Posted by: SuccinctDerek96yes they do
Because the people who have the right and correct background check as in criminal and medical background should not be the ones to be held away from protecting them selves when half of the people who do own then don't even have license to have them. We can't stop illegal weapons being put into criminals hands but we can at least give the people who might need the weapons a good background check going through criminal and medical and nothing is wrong give them the guns and even tho if the medically unstable people live with someone they should have a gun where they can find it or even get a hold of just like sandy hook his mom had all those guns and even tho she knew about his medical problems she should have been smart enough to at least keep the guns away from him. Everyone has the right to hold a weapon its in the second amendment of the constitution but to be able to keep that followed but also safe for others is to do strict back ground checks through criminal and medical history. And this is coming from a 14 year old girl..... That has to say something...
Posted by: AnonymousChecks and Balances
A society of armed citizens keeps its government in check. Technically we "the people" are the fourth branch of the government that's the reason for the second amendment.
The more we give the more the government can take. It all starts with our 2nd amendment, we give up that say bye bye to the 10th. It's all downhill from here.Posted by: AnonymousBig Picture
We are always going to have a majority of us who will do the right thing and protect ourselves and our families and community.
The fact that Americans are armed is a deterrence to invasion by aggressive nations. Take away the guns, and you take away the fact that nobody can take our land away from us. We are part of the biggest union in the world. We need to keep the heart strong, and guns are like baby aspirin.
RIP to the babies in NEWTOWN CTPosted by: AnonymousGuns save lives more then they end them
Criminals are criminals, do you think they care if they break another law to get a gun? No, they don't, they are already planning on SHOOTING YOU! So what would a little law that takes away YOUR gun (and right to defend your self with said gun) do? It would take away your chance of survival.
Australia, which underwent a total weapon ban has had an INCREASE of all gun related criminal activities, including a 25 % increase in rape. Will you stand by as your right to defend your self is taken away? Give them the ammo first - one at a time.Posted by: AnonymousPro Choice Freedom
Founded on freedoms if the freedom leaves the USA we will no longer be the USA.
If you want to be gay be gay. If you want to own a fire arm and your a citizen you should also have the freedom if your scared to drive a car don't buy one because they kill more people than guns. Its a choice I don't understand this about the current administration they are pro choice everything except guns.Posted by: AnonymousLast Form of Defense
We don't have guns to hunt. They are our last form of defense against tyranny. To protect yourself from the police. And you don't need a gun to kill a person and it doesn't make it easier! You could strap explosives to your chest people do that all the time!
Posted by: AnonymousYes, because it is our right.
It's not the job of the police to protect us as individuals, so in the time it takes the police to get there after calling 911, I'm not comfortable leaving my or my family's life in the hands of God. It only takes seconds to dial 911 but it might take the rest of your life for them to get there!
Posted by: AnonymousProtection of your family
The argument of gun control advocates is strict gun laws will prevent the attacker from having a gun. MY QUESTION IS HOW? It will prevent people who obey the law from getting guns, but criminals by their very nature tend not to obey laws. Police come after your dead. I think all our Hollywood elites who support this have armed guards. I don't have that luxury. There seems to be this opinion prevalent in this country that more laws will some how make us safer. What we need are people willing to obey those laws. So even though it would be great to live in fantasy land, this is the world we live in, and it is violent. People say your can not prevent violence with more violence, I disagree. If a gunman is bearing down on you, telling him you love him will not stop him, but a bullet between his eyes will. If that sounds harsh, grow up and accept reality.
Posted by: AnonymousRight to Protection
It is our right to own a gun if we choose. True, guns can be used to cause destruction, but if someone truly aims to harm others, they will do so no matter what. Controlling something and making it illegal won't stop the bad people from having it. To have to rely on the government for protection is dangerous. Look at history, when a government disarms it's people, bad consequences tend to follow.
Posted by: AnonymousIf you remove firearms from civilian hands, then you usurp the balance of power that keeps the State at bay.
When speaking of school massacres, why is it that Kent State never comes to mind? There you have the perfect example of the State's monopoly of force, and what were the results? The government which you so love and trust fired upon and murdered its own citizens. To make matters worse, it latter acquitted all of the trigger men! The state should never have a monopoly on violence, there are too many instances in which that monopoly has been abused to tragic ends (Germany, USSR, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, Libya, and Syria to name a few) and many more in which criminal elements obtained illicit guns anyway and left civilians defenseless (Mexico's cartels, Colombia's FARC, and Peru's Shining Path come to mind). What do all these countries have in common? Comprehensive and strict gun control and confiscation policies.
Posted by: Anonymousits a way of prtectin
Its just like having a bouncer with you. It is a way of protection, if some one comes at you with a weapon what will you do if you dont have a gun? You wont be able to defend yourself but with a gun they wont attack you if they see it. You wont even need to use it. I would rather have a gun with me and not get attacked than not have a gun because they are banned and get attacked.
Posted by: AnonymousWho will monitor a government who wants to limit our rights?
The constitution was written by men with moral conscience. They understood that men are inclined to take away the rights of people. Understanding politicians from their era they saw the need to protect the sovereignty of a nation by allowing the citizen militia and patriot to bear arms. Another check and balance against despots and depraved men of politics.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do people not understand? The constitution was founded to protect the people of the United States - specifically against the government getting too big or oppressive - and included basic rules on how the country should be run. Trying to get guns banned altogether in this country would be a huge mistake! Take a look at Australia! You can't even have a folding pocket knife on you anymore!
Posted by: AnonymousFor the People, By the People
Our citizen guns, especially war guns, are what keep the government in line. It was intended to be that way. It isn't just a right but a responsibility. Citizens who refuse to arm are actually not being responsible to their country and Constitution. Politicians were never meant to be paid rulers, but that is what they've become. They are now royalty, not the servants the Constitution meant them to be. The Constitution is supposed to limit government power over the People. It's not just about personal defense for petty crimes, but a national issue. Even Japan was afraid to invade the USA during WWII because there were too many armed citizens.
Posted by: AnonymousProhibition?
Every 13 seconds a firearm is used by a gun owner in the US in self defence. UK after dunblane, laws were tightened, yet 6 years later gun crime doubled. And looking more recently it shows that by 2009 gun violence was up 89%. What about the prohibition movement? Banking alcohol caused more problems than solutons and the same situation would happen. Gangs and criminals would still have the weapons, law-abiding citizens would be left defenceless
Posted by: a.aWe have a right to protect ourselves by legally owning guns.
As a private citizen, I have the right to bear arms to protect my family and my property. With all the lay-offs that are happening in law enforcement, response time is slower than it has ever been by the police. If an intruder were breaking in my home, by the time police showed up, it just might be to late for them to protect my home and family. It has to be up to each individual as to the self preservation of our homes.
Posted by: 5l4yRobYES
If a man barges into your house with a black market shotgun, or a zip gun (homemade), your spray will not save you, and you are his. And they're often high which means they don't care about the SWAT team being on the way, or your annoying ADT alarm. However, if you are an armed, trained civilian who can take care of yourself, that high, and untrained villain will be yours. Guns have also imbedded themselves into American culture, trade, and for some, life. If you are a hunter who has to go out and slay giant bears and wild animals 3x your size for a meal, a good, solid, nice capacity rifle, preferably semi auto, becomes important. There are also the fact these companies who arm our nation get a lot of their money from civilians, which allows them to make better weaponry. There's also this to ponder, lets say we have a world where many people are armed, would those people mess with each other often, or even at all? No. Low chance of survival for either side. Now for the world we're going towards, 1 man is armed, and he's bad, and everyone around him except a single, lonely security guard is unarmed. Well guess what, that man kills the security (easily amidst all the chaos) and just goes on a 2 minute killing spree as everyone waits for SWAT to come in, but by that time, the man would have done his damage, and dies totally satisfied. It's a known fact that legally armed civilians mess with each other far less than regular people. And many people like them don't have guns to kill with, but to have fun with. Go to the range and target shoot, or to collect,or to simply possess a semi-auto replica of their favorite gun. The fact so many people already know how to shoot guns also makes military training far easier in the marksman aspect. And finally, if guns were taken away, not only would you ruin many people's lives and hobbies, more men would join the forces to just shoot a gun than actually protect the nation, resulting in poor quality infantry, or a shitload of carelessness for saving the guy next to you and not yourself. Also, to people who think the government is some kind of godly force, it doesn't give a s*** about you unless you're wealthy.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are necessary
You guys don't understand the good about having guns. Owning a gun not only gives you the comfort of protection physically, but it will give you the satisfaction mentally as well. Even if we take away the gun law, the criminals will find ways to get guns illegally. That leaves the good citizens with nothing. Amen.
Posted by: AnonymousMy constitutional right.
I believe in what our founding fathers of America fought for. We have been given the right to live freely and according to our own will. The only thing that is attacking that freedom is not a foreign country but our own government. Forget whether or not guns should be legal. The real question is could you ever remove them from the state of Texas? HAHAHAHA no.
Posted by: AnonymousYes
If a man barges into your house with a black market shotgun, or a zip gun (homemade), your spray will not save you, and you are his. And they're often high which means they don't care about the SWAT team being on the way, or your annoying ADT alarm. However, if you are an armed, trained civilian who can take care of yourself, that high, and untrained villain will be yours. Guns have also embedded themselves into American culture, trade, and for some, life. If you are a hunter who has to go out and slay giant bears and wild animals 3x your size for a meal, a good, solid, nice capacity rifle, preferably semi auto, becomes important. There are also the fact these companies who arm our nation get a lot of their money from civilians, which allows them to make better weaponry. There's also this to ponder, lets say we have a world where many people are armed, would those people mess with each other often, or even at all? No. Low chance of survival for either side. Now for the world we're going towards, 1 man is armed, and he's bad, and everyone around him except a single, lonely security guard is unarmed. Well guess what, that man kills the security (easily amidst all the chaos) and just goes on a 2 minute killing spree as everyone waits for SWAT to come in, but by that time, the man would have done his damage, and dies totally satisfied. It's a known fact that legally armed civilians mess with each other far less than regular people. And many people like them don't have guns to kill with, but to have fun with. Go to the range and target shoot, or to collect,or to simply possess a semi-auto replica of their favorite gun. The fact so many people already know how to shoot guns also makes military training far easier in the marksman aspect. And finally, if guns were taken away, not only would you ruin many people's lives and hobbies, more men would join the forces to just shoot a gun than actually protect the nation, resulting in poor quality infantry, or a shitload of carelessness for saving the guy next to you and not yourself. Also, to people who think the government is some kind of godly force, it doesn't give a s*** about you unless you're wealthy.
Posted by: AnonymousIt is my right under the Constitution
It is my BASIC Second Amendment right under the Constitution of the United States of America to be able to own a gun should I choose to do so. To be able to defend myself and my property is simply a right. If you don't want a gun, don't buy one.
We, the people, should not fear the government. The government should fear us. If there were ever any need to protect ourselves against an uprising, how would we do this? With sling-shots?
I would much rather have the LEGAL right to own a firearm than have millions of illegal firearms out there in the hands of criminals. Feel free to do background checks on all of us that are willing to own firearms legally, but do not take away our rights.Posted by: pookiebearIt is our Second Amendment right
We the citizens of the United States, are entitled to the right to keep and bear arms, if you are mentally challenged, a convicted felon, or use any un-perscriped drugs such as anti-depressants, than your right to own a gun is restricted, we limit the rights of people who would take advantage of that to end the rights of others
Posted by: msaka33Gun control save lives?
To those who think any form of gun control saves lives. You can quote stats all you want. Just go look at the cities with the highest violent crime and murder rates and you will find they are the ones with the most restrictive gun control laws (Washing DC, Chicago, New York City, ect.). And to those who think that if no one had guns except the police, and government agencies, the US would be a safer place, just talk with someone who was under Hitler's or Stalin's rule. You need to keep in mind that the most dangerous and highest cause of death on the entire face of the planet are GOVERNMENTS. Our country's founders knew this, and that is why we have the second amendment in our constitution, and anyone who thinks it is outdated or times have changed just watch the news. A disarmed population are sheep guarded by the wolves. A disarmed population are victims waiting to be preyed upon. If you want to be a victim and not own a gun that is your right and I will stand by you and defend your right with our constitution, but I do not choose to be a victim and I expect the same from you.
Posted by: AnonymousPeople have the right to defend themselves.
Everyone is allowed, or should I say, supposed to defend themselves when they are in danger. In some countries like Japan, people aren't allowed to own guns, not even with the reason of the ability to defend themselves. In every country, whether citizens are allowed to have guns or not, there are gangs that own guns anyways. If these people are going to harm us, why not defend ourselves?
Posted by: AnonymousYou cannot stop the crazies!
Every private citizen should have the right to defend themselves at all times.
You cannot stop the "crazies" or any person who plans to do evil. They will always find a way to carry out their plan, whether it be with a gun, knife, bat, bomb, chemical, etc. How can you stop that?
They always find a way to get what they need. The ones who are performing these crazy acts are not those who are buying guns legally, registering them and following the rules. They do not care about the rules. So why punish an entire state or country because of these people. The only ones you would be punishing are the innocent people trying to protect themselves, their homes and their families.
Save the second amendment.Posted by: AnonymousGuns are not the problem
If one would stop and think for just one moment, one would realize, for the most part, illegal guns kill people, not legal guns. The rights of law abiding citizens, to own guns, should not be restricted because the criminal will ALWAYS be able to get a gun.
A criminal will always be able to buy a gun, no matter how much legislation is passed restricting the purchace of and ownership of firearms. Furthermore, I believe that every law abing citizen has the right to keep and BEAR arms, which means law abiding citizens have the right (the Constitutional right) to keep firearms in their home and on their person at all times. However, the education and proper use of a firearm should be a prerequisite for purchase as well as a crimiinal background check. Again, guns are not the problem.
BillPosted by: Anonymousyes
Our country is becoming more and more unsafe so we need something to protect ourselves with. criminals are now moving into towns how would you like it if he came and attacked your home? you would have nothing to protect yourself with. so that is why we should have guns because they save lives.
Posted by: AnonymousI support private citizens legally owning guns; we have the right to protect ourselves.
America would not have even been founded if citizens were not armed. Private citizens legally owning guns enables us to protect ourselves. First and foremost, we are able to protect ourselves from criminals in our own populace. Secondly, this right gives the ability to defend ourselves, if need be, from the government. Such an occasion would be very regrettable, but it does serve as a check and balance to keep our leaders in line. Third, it allows for guerrilla warfare if we are ever invaded.
Posted by: FlakyHerb64Law abiding citizens have a right to own guns.
Any law abiding citizen of the USA should be able to own guns. I have been shooting guns since my dad bought me a BB gun when I was 5 years old. I got my first marlin 22 semi automatic rifle at age 8. I have owned and shot many different guns since then. I have been taught how to properly use a firearm by my dad and have taken several NRA classes. I have never pulled a trigger on a gun unless I meant to shoot what I was pointing the gun at, either hunting or target practice. People who know little or nothing about guns think they know what's best for me and any other law abiding citizen. They are wrong. I should be able to own any gun that I see fit for the purpose I want, for protection, hunting, or just plain shooting.
I am 54 years old now and am afraid of all these liberals that think people should live by their rules. I and so many Americans such as myself are getting more afraid every day. Is that what you want?Posted by: XXXXXXIt is my right.
It's a joke to think that if there are stricter
Gun laws attackers won't have guns. Of course they will and stripping us of our right to own a gun will just provide criminals with even more victims. The second amendment was put in place because the founders of this country knew firsthand the damage a tyrannical government could do and they wanted to protect themselves and future generations from that fate. The politicians are using the Sandy Hook tradegy to tug at your heart strings so you won't realize they are trampling on the constitution. They have wanted to take our guns for years, and have always used tradegys like this to further their own agendas. 911... No guns.... Timothy McVey killed more children with his fertilizer bomb than were killed at Sandy Hook, but always the focus is on guns. if someone wants to kill you they will do it with whatever they can find. I have the right to defend myself.Posted by: Anonymousnothing would change
If guns were somehow legalized there would be people still killing people, it would also be harder to tell what they killed them with, and people also would own guns, illegally. do you really think someone is going to care if they are planning on braking one major law like murder that they break other laws? Second the reason people are give the right to bear arms, is for the state of our government today, our founding fathers wanted us to be able to change the government if it got too corrupt, and how would we do that if the government had all the guns?
Posted by: timtom2213Firearms are only tools.
I find all of these anti-firearm comments funny, and they all miss the main point: firearms are only tools. My concern is not the tools, it's the people behind them. In all honesty I don't care how many rounds of ammunition or how many firearms someone has, but when someone shows dangerous murderous intent I will defend myself and others with whatever firearm I can use.
Let's focus on mental health and arm ourselves. FBI crime statistics show that more firearms equates to less crime. The Second Amendment is there to protect us from tyrannical government and it mentions a well-regulated militia and the people's right to keep and bear arms. That means a state can have its own standing army such as a national guard, and there can be a civilian army as well. That way if the federal government becomes tyrannical the states can defend themselves, and if a state becomes tyrannical then the citizens of that state can defend themselves.
Lastly the second amendment applies to all firearms such as assault rifles, bolt action rifles, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns whether semi-automatic, pump or single shot. It applies to handguns as well even extended mags.Posted by: AnonymousYou can own a gun without legally owning guns
Taking guns from law abiding citizens who use them for target shooting, hunting or self protection doesn't solve anything. If someone wants to commit a crime with a firearm, they can get a hold of any type they want from illegal arms dealers. Sure citizens owning guns makes it easier for a person who is not in organized crime to go on a shooting spree, however you cannot solve society's biggest problems by taking the freedom away from everybody. Too prevent drug smuggling, the government can prohibit people from leaving and entering the country, and to stop gang violence, they can make curfews and monitor every person's moves. Then you end up with north Korea. Small, extremely rare events such as the Connecticut shooting should not take the rights away from the millions of people all across the country who abide all gun laws and use firearms for legitimate uses. All the people who are opposed to citizens owning firearms are people who don't have a need for firearms and have never appreciated the importance of firearms in some people's lives. I don't believe you can compare the US gun laws and firearm related crime rates to any other developed countries because other countries were created on completely different constitutions. The US has a violent past that was largely influenced by firearms. There is also vast amounts of wilderness in the US where hunting is a way of life for people. To take away guns would be altering traditions and ways of life that date back to before this country was confederated.
Posted by: lucasaIt is our right
First of all, guns are not the problem, the people who misuse guns are the problem. Even if the government banns guns, the criminals will always have a way to buy guns illegally, such as the black market. If the people are prohibited from owning a gun then how will they defend themselves? The point is that violence will never end with or without the use of guns.
Posted by: AnonymousWill a strict gun law stop killings?
The answer is NO, if all the guns could ever be removed from the world there are still many everyday things that can and have been used for mass killings. The police cannot be everywhere at once and the response time is insufficient to stop what is happening. I believe the solution is to arm and train (key part TRAIN) more people. What is better trying to stop someone from killing someone else or standing by while that person is killed then saying there was nothing I could do?
Posted by: AnonymousYes, we have more than just military style guns.
We have hand guns, shot guns and rifles. Those guns were made for hunting and protection. We have a right to have guns for good, not bad. It is in the Constitution, our second amendment. We have a safety and a fire button. You know when to have on fire or not. Do the right thing.
Posted by: AnonymousMy individual rights supersede the "collective" emotional response
All humans have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have a right to freely live our lives. We have natural rights to defend ourselves. Our constitution documented these rights and in doing so clearly defined what our government was restricted from doing (abrogating our rights) and specified the very few things government was allowed to do. The latest emotional outbursts from those who are driven by politics or emotions are no reason to disregard the constitution, or our individual rights.
Posted by: AnonymousPublic Programs are hard to manage
The government had recently given a Census, did everyone participate in the census? No, because it was optional and most people don't do things if they know they don't have to and don't want to. This like other public programs is not under total control nor is it completely accurate. This like other public programs, will not be successful, making the situation worse. People should be entitled to guns, but under alcohol tobacco and firearms, all should be enjoyed responsibly.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns don't kill people, people do!
All the people that have killed someone with a gun have gotten their guns illegally. If you were to ban the guns they would still find ways to receive them and then the innocent people that wanted guns just for protection in their homes would be basically defenseless. By the time the cops got there it would be too late and the intruders would have already pulled the trigger. These are just a couple of many reasons.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are good
There was a lady who lived in the heart of Fresno, the city with the number 2 homicide rate in the country (at least it did when this story took place). She was in her living room, and the double doors of the house started to strain inwards, as a thief was trying to break in to the house. The lady called 911 then proceeded to the closet where the family shotgun was kept, all the while talking to the officer on the phone. The officer asked some questions, like "Are there any escape routes you can take?"and "Are there any children in the home with you?" The lady proceeded to load the shotgun. She walked next to the door and cocked the gun. The officer went silent. "What was that?" The officer asked. The lady replied "Oh, its just my shotgun." The thief took off running. That is why guns are good.
Posted by: AnonymousLess Government
The gov. should not have their hand in everything we do. What happens when the gov. turns into some type of awful communist/dictatorship and the citizens are helpless? (This has happened -- read Animal Farm!) You may be surprised that I am a 20 yr. old college student pursing a liberal degree and I'm for LESS GOV. and PRO GUN OWNERSHIP.
Posted by: AnonymousKids killing kids
The recent events of the crimes committed in our schools have given way to political fodder and a rally point for the gun control advocates without really addressing the real problem. Why is it that no one is talking about the issue of what it is that is causing these children and young adults to want to murder other children and young adults? Maybe confronting the actual problem might make for better debate and/or legislation.
Posted by: AnonymousMaking more laws would be a mistake
First of all, people kill people, not guns. Perhaps guns enable people to do so, but the entire gun owning population should be punished for the acts of several people. If guns were illegal, criminals would find a way to get them, and if you think otherwise, you are naive and foolish. The public will simply be less safe with people couldn't defend themselves.
Posted by: Cooldude48It's in our bill of rights.
It's in the Bill of Rights. Why should we be punished because of other people's actions. Guns don't kill people, people with bad intentions and guns kill people. That's why we should have our guns especially for our self defense. So, just let us have our guns as deal with it.
Posted by: AnonymousRight to bear arms. Affirmitive.
The right to bear arms is a law which makes many citizens happy. Guns can be used as a defense weapon. People hunt as a passion. Background checks should be necessary in order to get a gun legally. Guns have many citizens confused. If a robber tries to brake in, your gun can be a very good defense weapon. Recently, guns have been used very wrong , as in the shooting of Newton. Again, background checks should be necessary in order to own a gun legally. Police always doesn't reach there on time of need, but your gun is your best friend at that time.
Posted by: AnonymousI am a Citzen of this country I believe that we stop killers by any means nessecary
I am a Vietnam vet, I don"t deserve to die without trying to protect myself or others. These criminal people are changing our society and we are paying for their bad behavior, I've had enough. These people are opportunist they attack the weak, elderly, female, and children when are these politicians going to wake up and think about it's citizens?
Posted by: AnonymousConstitution, it's that easy.
In a free country one must be able to defend oneself and ones family, from criminals, crazy people and government abuse. A government of the people by the people surely wouldn't put guns in the hands of government and not the very people who put those in government in power.
Posted by: AnonymousRepeal of Prohibition
Didn't work ! During Prohibition, people continued to produce and drink alcohol, and bootlegging helped foster a massive industry completely under the control of organized crime. Drinking in speakeasies became increasingly fashionable.
Five years of Prohibition have had, at least, this one benign effect: they have completely disposed of all the favorite arguments of the Prohibitionists. None of the great boons and usufructs that were to follow the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment has come to pass. There is not less drunkenness in the Republic, but more. There is not less crime, but more. There is not less insanity, but more. The cost of government is not smaller, but vastly greater. Respect for law has not increased, but diminished.Posted by: AnonymousThis right is guaranteed to by your Constitution that limits your government.
As my Dad likes to remind me, the Bill of Rights is not an "a la carte" menu. Allow one right to be ripped away, and the rest have a foundation of sand, ready to be toppled by willfully ignorant citizens, an over-reaching government and judges acting illegally and making bad court decisions. No totalitarian dictator got where he was by letting people keep arms, rather, dictators took them away and still do, in addition to eliminating free speech, eliminating the right to a fair and speedy trial and burning up the rest of rights that we enjoy. Incidentally, our President, Barack Obama, is acting just like every other ruler who took his country into totalitarian imprisonment; he is in the company of big names like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and others who killed millions of their own citizens.
Posted by: Anonymousabsolutely.
Contrary to antigun types, the cops have figured out that the only EFFECTIVE way to stop bad guys is with a gun. Some day in the distance future we may have super powers to stop them with, but for now we'll have to settle for a tool that actually works. Yes, SOME people abuse guns and THOSE are the very same people the REST of us need to defend our families from. I’ve tried using harsh language and dirty looks to stop felons and believe me, it doesn’t work, it just makes them madder. The number of people killed by accidents with guns is MINISCULE compared to car accidents and even accidents in the home. Unless we're getting rid of bathrooms or lining them with rubber padding to keep people from dying in there then it’s a little hypocritical to say that I should have to give up my gun because some dope blew his foot off playing around. No one expects me to give up MY car when a drunk mows down some kid, so again its hypocritical to expect me to give up a constitutional right just because some doper goes on a shooting spree. The FACTS are the FBI stats again for 2011 show a DECREASE in violent crime in the USA. This trend has been going for 2 decades or more...which is very peculiar given that so many states have adopted concealed carry in that same timeframe. It doesn’t prove that guns prevent crime, but it does prove that guns don’t cause crime, nor are they the root of any crime as some Brady types believe. Add these details to the fact that there are thousands and thousands of successful armed self-defense accounts every year, many of which you can find with a simple Google search and there is absolutely no VALID reason why anyone should expect law abiding citizens to make themselves defenseless sheep by getting rid of their guns.
Posted by: AnonymousCarry a gun because police are too heavy
Just because some psycho shoots up a school doesnt mean that I have to give up my right. I can own any gun I want and be a part of any organization I want. Hitler, Mao, and Stalin stripped their people of their weapons. Look what happened there. Those things wont happen because we are an armed society. When someone breaks into your house with a GUN(regardless if they are illegal or not criminals will have them) where are the cops? No where. You are own your own and you must take matters into your own hand at that point. The government isnt going to tuck you into bed. If you look at the cities and states with harsh gun control laws, THEY HAVE THE HIGHEST MURDER RATE WITH WEAPONS. Here in Nevada we have almost no gun laws, not even registration. The only thing we have to worry about is petty theft. Criminals are too afraid to break in because almost everyone owns a gun here.
Everyone and their grandma has a gun in Sweden yet they are one of the safest countries. It is our culture that causes the violence. Lack of education and constant violence in media. however dont forget all the prescription drugs these psychos take.
We have a second amendment for a reason. If you dont like guns dont buy one. Try to take my RIGHT then come knock on my door and see what happens. I will fight for my rights.Posted by: AnonymousNut cases not allowed
I would rather be there to help than be the victim. A dangerous person with a gun is a gun bully.. Faced with another gun aimed at him he becomes a coward.. People need to read the good stuff about the good people. If an armed person was known to be in a shop or school, the gun bully would not go near it... Have all vice principals take a concealed weapons class.. Why do you think we have sky Marshall's? Knowledge is power and security at the same time.. Fear is what brings on gun control... Find ways for prevention.. You think the bad guys will stop.. If you were all of the sudden in the middle of a robbery... Would you like it if I shot the bad guy before he hurt you or your family?... I feel better knowing there are responsible people carting guns..
Posted by: AnonymousControl
Many of the same up in arms for gun control are the same that were against the PATRIOT act just a few short years ago. They are acting as hypocrites who believe that control and infringements on rights is fine in some cases, but not ones that protect the nation from terror and further pain.
Posted by: AnonymousThough government regulation is necessary, gun ownership is permitted by the constitution.
The Second Amendment of the United States constitution assures the right to bear arms. However, it's not an absolute right, as the only rights are to a "well-regulated" militia. While the government has the right to restrict and regulate ownership, private citizens retain the right to legally own guns.
Posted by: N3r0nKrooIIt's a right not a privilege
We are all equal our constitution protects these rights.
With out these rights our for fathers and mothers died for we would not have these freedoms.
If they take the rights we are no longer a free nation. We will only wish we had the freedoms back.
With political parties they desire control and some desire ultimate control that and greed are the only reason our rights are under serious attack. My two cents.Posted by: AnonymousThe right of a responsible citizenry
If can't entrust the responsible citizenry with gun ownership, what does that say about society. Some would argue that banning guns would eliminate 'mass killings' but completely ignore the possibility of improvised explosives, flammable or poisonous materials, or any other means of harming others. A motivated person so disenfranchised or deranged to want to harm a group of random innocent people will find some way. If the goal is making society safer, shouldn't we be focusing on addressing the reasons these folks want to commit such atrocities as well as the support systems that are failing to treat them?
Posted by: mechengineermy right to protect my family and property
i wish this world was perfect and there was no crime and police could protect me and my family at all times but the police can't be in my house 24/7 i don't want to have a gun in my house were i have children but i want to make sure there safe at all times the crime rate in the uk has gone through the roof and the people who have guns is criminals i am a law abiding citizen a tax payer is it an infringment of my human rites to not be allowed to protect my family and property with a gun i don't want to go shooting innocent people but if an intruder comes into my house with a gun who knows what his or her intentions are but if i had a gun it would put me on equal terms with the intruder instead of just being a victim and i think if the intruder knew there could be a chance he could be shot he or she wouldn't be as eager to break into a house as i have said i don't wanna have a gun were my kid's are and would find it hard to take a human life but to be put in that situation with the rite laws would be backing me up and not the criminal i would do it in a heart beat to protect my family i would rather have a gun there and never have to ever use it than be in a situation were i need one but am not allowed to have one
Posted by: mount.grumpitSupport guns, they save lives.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I love all anti-gun people who hate guns, until someone breaks into their house or something happens to them. If you don't like guns then deal with it. They can't take our guns away, don't come crying to gun owners when you need one to defend your family from murderers or rapists breaking into your home.
Posted by: AnonymousGun control just gives more power to an already unstable, and quite frankly, stupid government.
It is our right as Americans to privately own weapons.. Many people would say that we don't "need" military grade weapons or high capacity mags, but it's not about needs. Our founding fathers didn't write the "Bill of Needs". They wrote the Bill of Rights. There are many people that disagree, these are just my thoughts.
Posted by: AnonymousFirst.......Last line of defense
As a free legitimate human being of this world, of the US; it is my right to protect myself. I shouldn’t have to rely on appointed security, the police or the military to protect me in every aspect of self-defense. If the US government bans the buying, selling and use of semi-automatic weapons, the only protection for citizens will be the military and or the police. I will not be treated like sheep. This entire topic is foolish and twisted. My character should not be under scrutiny here. I along with millions of US citizens are perfectly capable to use and carry fire arms properly; even better than law enforcement or the military. I as a man on this planet should be able to protect myself. I don’t condone the senseless killing of people; but the bottom line is, once people give up their right to bear arms, they will no longer be free.
Posted by: AnonymousThe government has no legal right to protect private citizens, so who will?
Even if you buy into the word-smithing that the anti-gun crowd has used to take what is one of the most explicitly worded amendments, how dense does an individual have to be to agree with the government telling you that legally, they have no obligation to protect your safety, while at the same time telling you they want to pass laws making it illegal for you to own a weapon to protect yourself?
EVERY single State in the US has legislation on the books exempting the government from a legal obligation for protecting its citizens from harm. Publicly, every law enforcement official will tell you to rely upon them to protect the citizens & tell you you do not need a weapon to protect yourself or your family because they will do it. Yet if you look through the law reviews of each state, you will find case after case where, when a citizen is raped, shot or harmed in other ways after calling 911 & the police either do not show up, or show up too late to render assistance & the victim's family sues the local government for failing to protect the person, the victims have lost every single time because . . . . there is legislation on the books exempting the government from any LEGAL right to protect the citizenry.
My favorite case was the case of Warren vs. District of Columbia D.C. (79-6 & 79-304) where three women lived in a duplex (1 woman in the lower townhouse & two in the upper townhouse). An armed intruder broke into the lower unit and assaulted & raped the woman. The two ladies in the upper unit heard the assault & called 911. The dispatcher told them police were on the way but only told the unit she dispatched, that it was a domestic disturbance. The police unit went to the address but did not see any disturbance, so they checked the door to find it locked, but never attempted to gain entry & then they left. A short time later, the women in the upper unit once again called 911 because of the screams coming from their neighbor. The dispatcher promised to send another unit, so the two women in the upper unit tried to end the assault & rape by going to their neighbors door & hollering to the assailant that the police would be arriving shortly. The assailant seized this advantage to open the door & force the two women into the lower condo at gunpoint where he proceeded to tie them,as he already had the 1st woman & then he spent a leisurely 14 hours repeatedly beating & raping all three women. The police never did show back up because the dispatcher decided it must be a prank so she never dispatched a 2nd unit to check on the calls. When the women's families sued the District of Columbia since, it was illegal for them to possess a firearm, stun gun or any type of mace product in D.C., so they could not protect themselves, and the law enforcement agencies were obviously also not capable to protect them, the case was dismissed by superior court judge Joseph Hannon & when the plaintiffs appealed, Judge J. Nebekker upheld the dismissal, saying "that under the law, the government & its agents are under no general duty to provide police protection to any particular individual citizen, but, rather duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large &, absent any special relationship between police & individuals, no specific legal duty therefor exists". He went on to say that the police officers were not for failing to attempt to ascertain that the assaults were continuing upon the victims within the residence before leaving the location.
So let me get this straight, even if I was to ignore the fact that the Constitution expressly forbids the government from limiting my 2nd amendment rights in any way (which I will not do), how am I supposed to buy into the fairytale that I will be safer from criminals when it is illegal for me to own guns, stun guns, mace etc. while at the same time knowing that the government is not legally obligated to protect me or my family?
I have to laugh at the comments from the sheep on the other side of the web page that all say it is idiotic to believe that allowing citizens to carry firearms will do anything but cause gun related violence to escalate out of control. The US government's own studies actually prove just the opposite. The number of US citizens with concealed weapons permits is over 30 times higher than it was 15 years ago & gun-related violence in the US is the lowest it has been in 10 years. Explain that to me!Posted by: AnonymousYes we should be able to own guns
If you live in the United States, then a government which is true to the constitution should allow private citizens to own guns. If private citizens can get their hands on guns, then the government should have no problem acquiring guns also and using them to keep the population in check. On the other hand, a nation without guns in the face of a all powerful government with guns is a poor bargain.
Posted by: AnonymousThey can save lives!
People could use them as self defense tools. Owning guns can prevent theft and assaults. Things like the Newtown incident can be prevented by having guns and only using them in necessary situations. Guns could be a way to save lives and not kill people. It can save millions of lives all around.
Posted by: AnonymousYes!
I believe in the Constitutional Rights of American citizens. I guarantee it would be one slippery slope to allow even the modification of a single right our forefathers set forth. Can you imagine what our government would do once that floodgate was opened? Even now they are so arrogant as to be discussing such an attack on our guaranteed freedoms.
Further, does any thinking person actually believe criminals, or those with criminal intent, would surrender their guns? NO! They would just take unfettered advantage of the people's inability to protect themselves. Case in point: When I was 19 years old (45 years ago) I heard someone coming up the wooden staircase to the back door of my second floor apartment. He couldn't budge the screen door so he went around to the front door. In the meanwhile I grabbed my 12 gauge from behind my bedroom door, and standing just behind the locked front door I heard him trying the door knob. I pumped once, chambering a round, a sound that is like no other, and the person bounded down the first flight of 7 stairs, without touching a one, and over the railing. Problem solved without a single shot fired, but he obviously had bad intent. He also knew the sound an equalizer made just on the other side of the front door. Sadly, just a couple weeks latter, a woman in the same triplex was raped. She did not have such an equalizer. Questions?Posted by: AnonymousTools should b illegal cuz they make guns!~sarcasm
Yes. It's a concept called right to protect oneself and their loved ones from the government becoming a military despotism via a declaration of martial law by the President under circumstances like the ones described in a readiness exercise report done in 1984. It was called Rex84. It talks about presumed loss of continuity of our Government and allows for the President to literally do whatever he wants. He would become a "super" branch of government able to use to military to enforce anything. Kinda like Escape from New York/L.A. only not a joke. Right about then anyone who is anti-gun will be an indentured servant or dead. There should be better methods of accountability put in place for assault weapon ownership. Like maintaining a safety course license along with a psych evaluation and a once per month militia exercise. Militia is civilian military for those who don't know. Being anti gun is like saying mutually assured destruction causes nuclear war. If everyone was educated in weapon in safety and anyone or everyone coud have them I doubt muggings woud be an issue. But mortality would go up from HANDGUN shootings. HANDGUNS are the real issue. Assault weapons kill few people in the US. I coud go on forever but there is no real point. Ignorant people do ignorant things. I could use a machining station to cut every part to build a gun and make casings for the bullets and then cat bullets make gunpowder load the ammo and shot it even if they took guns away. I know I've gotten off topic but I think my argument(s) are valid, and if guns were illegal would you make repeating crossbows illegal? Then spears and knives. What about rocks. Regulation is always better because you can control the regulated products venue in the national market. Illegal drugs are unregulated and the war on drugs is still going. Let's just give cartels another high profit item why don't we? I welcome criticism but please be polite and logical or you'll just delegitimize yourself preemptively. Ty.
Posted by: Madhatter333The Constitution supports gun ownership, it's that easy.
In a free country one must be able to defend one's self and family, from criminals, crazy people and government abuse. A government of the people, by the people surely wouldn't put guns in the hands of government and not of the very people who put those in government in power.
Posted by: AnonymousPrivate citizens should be allowed to legally own guns, because it is a great way to protect yourself.
I believe that private individuals have a right to own guns. I do feel that there should be strict testing, though, before they are allowed to buy one. With the way the crime rates are now, individuals need ways to protect themselves. Citizens also should be allowed to do this for hunting purposes, as well.
Posted by: eyeslikethatPrivate citizens should be allowed to own guns.
Private citizens should be allowed to own guns because the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America grants that right to individuals. In states with restrictive gun control laws, there are more violent crimes than in states with less restrictive gun control laws. This is true because the average criminal is smart enough to realize that it is wiser to rob or mug an unarmed victim than to rob or mug a well armed victim.
Posted by: jackprague94Are you serious???
History is replete with examples of tyrannical governments taking away the rights of the masses to impose radical ideologies that oppress the people and glorify tyrants. In my humble opinion the only good things this administration has done is 1) sell more guns to the masses and 2) the sequester and obviously both were unintended. I think the President and other Liberal member of the administration need to take more vacations.
Posted by: AnonymousGovernments kill 300,000,000 people
In the last century, governments around the world have executed or otherwise killed over three hundred million citizens. To say that wars and death worldwide result from government and corporate pursuit of power and profit would not be wrong. We need to provide healthcare, stop corporate assaults on food safety [codex]
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are Good
If a criminal is going to kill someone they will find away to do it with or without guns. If you take the guns away what can we use for protection. If guns kill people then pencils misspell words also cars drive drunk and spoons make people fat. Lets take away phones to. People die by driving and texting.
Posted by: AnonymousDuty, responsibility, proction of my family and the citizens around me.
Proper training, knowledge, and understanding of what it means to have the right to carry a weapon allows our country to be a safer place. There would be less murder, robbery and accidental deaths if all that are legally allowed to obtain a weapon had one. Crime would go down and as a nation, other nations would not be inclined to think about attacking us. If we allow our country to take away our right to have firearms, then we open a door for them to take control of our freedom.
Posted by: AnonymousWithout the Second Amendment, there is no protection for the First Amendment.
If a population is unarmed, it is thus rendered defenseless against the government. That is not a government that rules by the consent of the governed but instead by edict. One of the tenets of Shariah law is that non-Muslims cannot be armed. This was done so that they could not fight other oppressive parts of Shariah law, such as horrifically high taxes and institutionalized oppression. Even 1400 years ago, Mohamed knew that to rule by oppressive means, one must have a disarmed populace. Hitler and Mao Zse Doung knew this too when they banned private ownership of weapons. Citizens must be disarmed before they can be rendered subjects.
Freedom requires the means of its defense, and in the modern era, this means guns.Posted by: Pir4AndAbsolutely yes, it is our duty.
Do you know the reason the founding fathers gave, when they mandated that American citizens should always bear arms? It was because they had seen first hand that an unarmed citizenry is at the mercy of the powers that be. They were wise enough to know that when people are given power, it corrupts. They introduced a system of checks and balances that would limit power, with the armed citizen militia being the ultimate check to abuse of power. It is our duty as a citizen of this nation to be not only armed, but versed in the correct use of arms, so that the power of government does not subject the power of it's citizenry. I'm proud to see that there are people that feel secure enough in the goodness of their government to call for disarment of their people, but they are misguided. People are fallible. Governments are fallible. If you are not armed, and practiced with the arms you choose to use, you are a detriment to the security of your fellow Americans. You are a key to the door of corrupted government that there is no fighting back against. Please, if not for the protection of you and yours, please arm yourself and learn to use it, for the security of our nation itself.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, Guns should be
If everybody had a gun what do you think the world would be like everyone would use it as they pleased. Guns are mostly used for safety, but as humans we get angry easily and might use guns for revenge. So think about it do you want to live in an unsafe environment with everyone dying everyday.
Posted by: AnonymousInalienable right
The second amendment was written in as basic a format as possible as to not be misinterpreted and its being done anyway. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from tyranny. This has happened in the past and continues across the world. Our forefathers had the foresight to recognize this problem and added the most important amendment, the second. No one or any government has the right to infringe on my 2nd amendment. It's my inalienable right. Politicians and the elite surround themselves with weapons while telling me that I can not. It's my belief that government wants total control of the people and this is not possible while we are armed. The second amendment was written to protect the people from government. It was not written for hunting, target practice or anything other than to protect the people from government. For those that say Americans owning guns is like letting North Korea have nuclear weapons is pro posteriors. Besides the fact they already have nuclear weapons. They say as long as there are weapons in others hands none of us will be safe. That is true. Because if we do not have weapons the only ones that will are criminals and the ones the 2nd amendment warn us of,the government.
Posted by: 2ndamendmentYes, because you guys aren't thinking.
So I can bet a lot of the pro gun law people out there actually hunt. Not just with bows and but with guns. For years people have had guns. Yes there are some idiots out there who don't use guns the way they should but that's why they have the checks they do before you get a gun or are aloud to have one. No matter what the bad guys are always going to be able to get there hands on a gun one way or another. And when they do, do you want to be left standing with a tiny knife to protect you and your family with? Or being some place and watching a gun man shoot down intent people and can do nothing about it? Know I don't. You guys are stupid not to want to protect your self and your family, because that's exactly where it is headed.
Posted by: AnonymousWe should have freedom
If guns were not around, then criminals would still be able to get their hands on guns and kill people. Restrictions of guns is preposterous. Everyone should have the freedom to chose. Security systems are more expensive and in the case of an emergency they would not be helpful to those around them then having a gun in storage. My father owns a ranch and without a gun he would not be able to get rid of the coyotes and other predators coming to get his animals safety. My mother when a child had to shoot a burglar that was coming, he had a gun and if she wouldn't have shot him, i would not be alive today. If banning guns, how would you take away guns from the owners now? There are more guns than people in the U.S. , the way they would take them away is buying them back. The issues of hurting our economy when it is already in a dangerous state is something this country cannot afford to do. Nazi Germany had high gun control.... psh that worked out well. The type of people that buy guns and take gun classes are single adult women... think if in Connecticut if those teachers had guns what a benefit that would have been. Guns in schools is an idea that should not be pushed away. If your saying that it is not good to have guns in the house because of suicides? then think again because suicide is an emotional issue, they cannot stop suicides just by taking away guns. Plus everything is a harm in the home. My friends house was burned down from a freaking candle, any accident can happen which is just a way of life. Taking away guns isn't going to do anything good, there is nothing good coming from it except for a butt-load of debt.
Posted by: KristenY123You cant take away a right
Our founding fathers understood the importance of the second amendment, do people get shot and die? Do crazy people go nuts and kill people? ....Well yeah but its a consequence of living in a free society but you have to understand the concept of this amendment, if someone has a gun and is about to shoot you...Would you rather call the cops and wait 20 min and hope the dude isn't going to kill you? Or would you rather protect your self and your family with a piece? Our founding fathers were also fighting a corrupt empire at the time and they got tired of enslavement and brutality....Now in 2013 we live in a society were cops are killing people for no reason, gangsters and drug dealers are shooting up neighborhoods for territory,full of robberies because are economy is on the verge of collapse. But go ahead make guns illegal and see if the gangsters and crazy people turn their guns in
Posted by: Anonymouslul j j
Guns can have negative and tragic effects, but the benefits of firearms far outweigh the harm caused by them. The right to bear arms is not just to defend your home. It is also to defend yourself from the government should it become tyrannical. This was the original purpose of the Second Amendment as it states, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This is the very reason why semi-automatic weapons such as the AR-15 must be kept legal. If you think that America's government cannot become one of tyranny, you need to man up and face the facts. It has happened to many other countries, and it can happen to ours too.
Many of the individuals supporting gun control do not want to see more deaths occur because of firearms. No one likes death, but this is not the way to approach this situation. To assist in lowering the crimes involving guns, better background checks looking for a history of criminal activity and mental health issues should be made. Also, if you think that police officers (please take note that I highly respect them) should take care of all of the criminals, think again. Police officers respond to situations after they have already started, and many times ended. In life-and-death situations, seconds can make a huge difference. Although no national average response time for police officers exists, it varies across the country from a less than four minute to thirty-five minute wait. A lot can happen in a four minute wait when there is a lunatic running around with a gun. The average response time for an armed civilian, however, is five seconds. Do the math.
No amount of gun control or gun-free zones will stop individuals with an intent on hurting others. In fact, if you were a crazy person with a gun, where would you go to shoot people? WHERE NO ONE CAN SHOOT BACK! Also known as gun-free zones. No matter what, evil will still exist in this crazy world of ours. Because of this, we should have the right to protect ourselves.
Citizens would have no self defense.
Criminals would either ignore the laws, or find other weapons. Guns don't kill-people do. It is also against the second amendment. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You already need a permit for a gun. There are many regulations. Hunters also need guns.Posted by: AnonymousGuns not only protect ourselves, our family, our home and belongings, but also protect us from corrupt government!
I believe just what I wrote in my supporting headline. Hitler had guns taken away from his German population, so that they couldn't fight back when he took over and they lost their freedom. He also started feeding and housing poor people (like our people on welfare) to get them on his side.
Posted by: AnonymousMy two cents
I see a lot of statements from the U.K. and people in the U.S.A. who are obviously against private civilian gun ownership. Well, here is my opinion and I believe I have a right to speak as I was a victim in a shooting. My father fought in Korea for our safety and freedom. Our country was and is secured by firearms and weapons and our forefathers wrote this in our constitution for a reason. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That say’s it all. We don’t need books and books of more ridiculous laws; just enforce the ones we already have. I’ve had civilian versions of military rifles all my life and have always been a responsible owner who locks them up. Some people enjoy this right. I’m not a killer and I don’t hunt. I just enjoy shooting and collecting. My heart goes out completely when a tragic event such as this occurs. Just remember this if some sociopath wants to mass murder they will always find a way to accomplish this no matter what laws are on the book. God bless
Posted by: AnonymousI silently keep the balance of power.
I support and defend the constitution. Very intelligent men wrote it with the sole intent to keep all the people in this land free. They knew that if its citizens were disarmed, the government would do as it pleases. The constitution also doesn't force people to arm themselves either. Its a choice. So you don't like guns, don't buy one. Wow, that was simple. That's the freedom you have in America. The government cant force you to buy anything. That's in the constitution, check it out. Which is why people think the healthcare bill is unconstitutional. But that's a different subject. Now these emotional suckers are being teased into thinking that if we restrict the rights of the many into giving up all there guns that criminals will just turn in theirs. Well that's a complete fallacy. Criminals don't follow laws folks. They just don't care. Criminals think twice if they feel that someone might be armed. The right to keep and bear not only keep our government in check, it keeps criminals in check. Wow, criminals and the government have something in common. funny how that works out. So our constitution was written based upon the actions of the past. Because tyranny always happens when its citizens are disarmed. Whats crazy is in the past 100 years alone, governments disarmed their people and proceeded to kill them off. Not just like 10,000 or the 6 million O no, Check out how many deaths were caused at the hands of the governments. Its appalling. It still can happen people. Don't be so naive.
"A government that does not trust it’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is itself unworthy of trust."
– James Madison
"The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every
free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions."
– State vs. Kerner
Source: 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" Ben FranklinPosted by: AnonymousI vote yes.
Taking away guns is taking away our second amendment. If we do not have guns how are we expected to protect ourselves? I agree that stupid people want guns for stupid purposes but what about those people who use them for hunting, or protection, or shooting ranges? Taking the guns away violates our rights I may be only 18 but I do know the difference in stupidly using a gun & using it for a smart purpose.
Posted by: AnonymousWhere the world is heading now?
Yes, I agree with previous poster about the fact that civilians should be on par with government and/or corporate force structures. Not a secret, the latter are controlled by directives from elite societies, and it should be clear to non-ignorant people that such management system is VERY prone to corruption and conspirative occupation, especially these days. I live in a country where it is much more tricky for a civilian to obtain rights for firearms than, say, US or Germany. Anyway, in many places in ancient times, there was the only social class that was not allowed to own weaponry, and that class was slaves. However, mass media wants us to believe that everything is under control, all is ok and so on, and so forth. I'm not aware of any actual or potential threat of government-organized diversions, but still, I think we must have a chance to hold the line.
And true, it is handguns actually that cause many problems with thugs on streets etc. More than that, handguns won't help much if something serious happens. Civilian defenses must be powerful enough to thwart suppressions, well-organized in case of tactical takeover and, which is most important, independent from classes above.Posted by: AnonymousGun Laws
The gun laws in the United States should be a little tighter. Citizens do not need to own automatic weapons but they do have the right to own a hunting rifle or a pistol for protection. Dealers should also request that each person intending to purchase a weapon need a to get a psychological test.
Posted by: AnonymousAllow guns
There was recently an attack in China in which a man with a KNIFE killed 20 children. One of the lowest crime rates in the world is in Finland where they require citizens to own firearms. I say allow the teachers and faculty to carry guns in locked closets or drawers to allow a fight against any intruder. Criminals that plan on killing people will not back away from their plans to kill because they would have to obtain a firearm illegally. Im pretty sure they are ready to break the law if they are going to kill people.
Posted by: brandonfoggAbsolutely, guns, bullets, knives, sticks and rocks also.
Of course, no society that wishes to protect itself from the many threats that one can face, from a rabid dog or raccoon, a burglar or rapist, a kidnapper, or other criminal, that has all intentions to do harm to you , your family or fellow citizens, a tyrannical government, rioters, or others during civil unrest, race riots, food riots, and untold numbers of possible events must and should have a firearm, and to be proficient in its use.
Posted by: AnonymousCommon Sense please
It is my contention that the so called "assault rifle" is one of the most effective means of personal defense available.
Folks need to remember that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Benjamin Franklin
“I prefer liberty with danger than peace with slavery” Jean-Jacques RousseauPosted by: AnonymousIf the second amendment goes, the rest are soon to follow.
The reason for the second amendment was so that the government would know that if they break their contract with the people that the consequences would be swift and severe. Being able to defend ourselves is just a bonus. To all you people in the no column: The UK has a violent crime rate that is far above the us and they have some of the strictest gun laws on the planet. The reason for this is that physically strong young men are able to commit these crimes, such as burglary, assault, robbery, and even rape with impunity. With citizens being able to have firearms, I can now defend myself from a physically stronger opponent that has practiced violence all his life. "God created man, Sam Colt made them equal."
Posted by: AnonymousShall Not Be Infringed
The Second Amendment is the shortest of all the Amendments in the Bill of Rights and the only one with such a clear demand on Government.... Shall Not Be Infringed. Why is this so difficult for so many people? The Second Amendment protects and supports all the other Rights and without it the other Rights could be subject to a tyrannical government or worse, the tyranny of a mob with a simple majority.
Posted by: Anonymousdefend yourself!
How would you defend yourself if you weigh 100 lbs and your attacker is 6 ft tall and 200 lbs?
We would have been attacked on our own soil in WW2 but our enemies knew the populace had their own guns and would have to fight more than the military.Posted by: AnonymousKillings
Guns don't kill people at all. The only way people die is by people themselves. There must be someone to pull the trigger. Also there must be someone to load the bullet. If people say guns kill people, they should open up their eyes and learn that guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Posted by: AnonymousLeave
American citizens have always had the right to own guns. A lot of countries ban their citizens from doing so. If you don't like the fact that I have a gun, then move to a country that doesn't allow it, a country that agrees with you, a country that you agree with. The government can ban gun ownership, but I am still going to keep it, so what does "banning" guns really accomplish?
Posted by: AnonymousGuns do not cause crime
I see others in the "NO" section which are so very simply looking at the wrong data. If you look at violence as a whole in countries which have gun laws or even very strict gun laws, how does violence rate? How about then you just move there then! I read that someone got a hold of an assault rifle and hand gun and wandered the streets of the UK for hours shooting people at random. No not like 15 minutes, hours! Because no one was armed. Strange though, that weapon was illegal, how did he get it...? How about the war on illegal drugs. Yea, making something illegal really keeps it out of the hands of criminals...
So when society changes totally, guns will no longer be "killing" people. But I will say this, if more people are killed by drunk drivers than guns, should we install a breathalyzer machine into every automobile so before youre allowed to start the car, you blow? Wait though. If more people are killed in auto accidents via speeding, than should we outlaw all cars which can exceed the speed limits?Posted by: Rudy4242nd Ammendment + Federal Arguments + Supreme Court Rulings
There is no debate unless the Constitution is amended. Our authorization has already been granted and there can be no infringement, by federal government as SCOTUS ruled this an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), or by states as ruled in McDonald v. Chicago (2010). For those who feel that military-style or 'assualt weapons' should be excluded, the federal government, while prosecuting for a sawed-off shotgun in federal government argued "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."
Posted by: AnonymousGun control is counter-productive
If one wants to "do something" just for the sake of "doing something", then have at it. If the goal is to seriously address the problem of psychopathic killers, then gun control is not the answer, and in fact provides more fertile ground for future atrocities. Some sincerely believe that more gun control will work; many politicians see an opportunity to push an agenda or curry favor ("Never let a good tragedy go to waste", Rahm Emanuel). Most mass killings have all occurred in "gun free zones". The Portland Mall case, San Antonio last week, Pearl, MS, Appalachian School of Law, and many other cases all had the potential for high body counts that didn't happen, because armed citizens thwarted the killer.
Israel arms teachers in classrooms; result, no school killings since implementing that policy.Posted by: AnonymousWithout guns being legal, criminals will have them all.
The black market. That will always sell guns, and no doubt, it is easier to find an illegal gun than a legal gun. A government that fears its people is called a republic or a democracy. A People that fear its government is called a dictatorship, a communism, or a socialism. Without guns comes tyranny, and that was the firearms role in the US Constitution. Freedom! God Bless America!
Posted by: AnonymousShould private citizens be allowed to legally own guns?
YES. Number one reason, personal protection, everyone is entitled to have the means to protect his home. Home invasions are common already, if those hoodlums who are responsible for home invasions could be sure that no one in the home was armed there would be a rash of burglaries, home invasion, and assaults, including rape. No one would be safe in their own home.
Posted by: AnonymousDoes making meth illegal stop meth from being used?
Criminals by definition break laws. Stricter gun laws would have no effect. The only ones who would not have guns are law abiding citizens.
Also, even if we were successful in disarming everybody, even criminals, it would have no effect on mass killings. Guns are not the only weapon capable of such destruction. Criminals kill people, not guns, not knives, not dynamite. The best way to stop criminals is to arm law-abiding citizens.
This picture says it all: http://images.mises.org/DailyArticleBigImages/2354.jpgPosted by: echochristopherGiving up Guns wont stop violence and senseless killings
It could however make victims more vulnerable to two potential predators: criminals and 'the law'. Meaning street violence could be easier for street thugs because of no fear of armed resistance. Secondly, if the gov't ever becomes tyrannic, citizens could not resist. Just like victims of other governments that decided to ruthless abuse defenseless citizens.
I suggest focusing on violent media, drug use, and mental health services. Also reform of the criminal justice system. Don''t focus on gun ownership by the millions of law abiding citizensPosted by: AnonymousIt's time to wake up.
We need to wake up and see that this world exists. On the opposite side of the debate, a common question is why is there such paranoia? I'll tell you why - because of what we saw this week. What we saw in Colorado in July, what you might bear about on your own street. People are brutal and cruel and we need to see that. As much as you might want to outlaw guns (which, oh yeah, don't mind The United States Constitution - it was only written meticulously with American citizens in mind both then and forever) the fact is, banning things simply doesn't work. We ratified an amendment banning alcohol in the early 1900s and less than 20 years we repealed it. The black market isn't a conspiracy. The United States saw an increase of Organized Crime over LIQUOR. Imagine the underground deals for firearms! If you don't like guns, alright fine. Don't buy one. As for me, I'm living in a state of vigilance, as from what we've seen in the last 20 years especially, anything goes. I'd much rather use my firearm as a paperweight (which I wouldn't do - figure of speech. Lock them in a safe, everyone!) than ever against another human being. If someone enters my home or tries to attack me outside of it, I'm not going down without a fight. If a good person can't stop the evil, we're giving them the opportunity to win.
"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."Posted by: AnonymousSeriously?
You can't blame a hammer for smashing your finger, or a rock that was thrown at you by a person who probably isn't sane. We don't need gun control, we need criminal control. In my opinion, you should be able to do whatever you want in the US, as long as it does not affect other people in a bad way.
Posted by: AnonymousReally...
My foremost opposition to the illegalization of firearms is psychos, murderers, rapists, thieves and serial killers will get access to weapons regardless of the law. So lets put you in a scenario where a criminal breaks into your house and your family is fast asleep. You go downstairs and startle the robber. He tries to stab you but you have a 92FS pistol, shooting him dead. This is the first and only argument I have for legally owning guns, self-defense. There is basically no effective counter-argument for this. The only significant one would be: in due time, the law could effectively make it extremely difficult or impossible for criminals to get firearms. This is a fairy-tale belief if you actually think this is possible. There will always be a market for anything that has a demand via 'black market'. Although I do sympathize for the victims and the families of the Connecticut shooting, but people who are saying these types of massacres will stop if we illegalize weapons are being blinded by the fact that criminals are quite arrogant and will do anything to get their hands on what they want.
Posted by: sumrclayTo all these radical liberals
Taking away our guns is taking away our freedom and rights. Our fathers stated in the constitution "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That was clearly put in the constitution to protect the people against a overriding government and criminals! Take away our guns is taking away our protection! Making guns illegal WILL NOT MAKE CRIME GO DOWN! Actually it will cause a dramatic increase in crime with criminals knowing that a normal law biding citizen won't have a weapon and they will be free to mug without retaliation. There is such thing as the black market you all know that right? So criminals will still get guns regardless! But being able to strap a firearm on your hip and go into public will make crime rates drastically go down. This reasoning is obvious. If those teachers at the Conn. elementary school were able to conceal a fire arm on them, i can guarantee you that no where near as many helpless children would have been killed knowing that the man would have been dropped a lot sooner! Same thing goes for the Colorado Massacre! So yeah, keep thinking that guns kill people! What if you're in a situation where some serial killer came into a shopping mall with you and your family and started shooting up the place, would you rely on your "karate" skills if you had any or some frozen meat to throw at the suspects head. NO! I can guarantee that you would be praying for the right to bear arms then wouldn't you? Saying guns kill people is like saying pencils misspell words and beer makes people drive... I heavily support my 2nd amendment right!
Posted by: KniggitPigDogPolice do not have to protect you
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.
Posted by: AnonymousThere will still be guns out there.
People say to ban carrying guns and ban them altogether, exept the police. Even if they were banned they would never be gone. Criminals don't care about gun laws and whether they're allowed to have them, they're breaking the law anyway. That would bring us into a world with criminals stealing and killing while the poor citizens wait for the police to come save them. That is a world I don't want to live in.
Posted by: AnonymousIn case of am emergency attack,
people need to be able to carry tools for self-protection so that they can defend themselves. I absolutely agree with Anonymous (below), that is one of the most reasonable reasons for why we need guns to protect ourselves. If there are car accidents and we don't give up our cars, then we are not giving up our guns. Self-defense is first and foremost a personal responsibility and others cannot interfere in our personal business and tell us to cough up our guns, because we NEED them to protect us and our families from danger.
Posted by: AnonymousIf you don't trust the average law-abiding citizen with a gun you have no business in a Democracy.
Here's a better question: "Should the police be allowed to have guns?" If we stopped the police from having guns, there would be less shootings and less violence. Most, but not all, police officers do not need guns to do their jobs. Arming the police leads to violent, avoidable confrontations.
The are basically four groups inside the USA that have guns:
1. Law-abiding citizens
2. The police
3. The military
4. Criminals.
Of these four groups, only one (Law-abiding citizens) has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It would only be appropriate to take a given weapon away from Citizens after one has successfully taken said weapon away from Criminals and the Police (in that order). Thinking that taking guns away from citizens first (ostensibly to lower the availability to criminals) is wrong-headed because most of the reason that citizens and the police have guns it to protect citizens. You can't take guns away from citizens first to protect citizens, you have to take them away from criminals!
At the risk of stating the obvious, the way to reduce gun violence isn't to take guns away from law-abiding citizens, it's to get guns out of the hands of criminals. But the obvious needs stating here because those that are worried about violence want to take the wrong path. There are more than enough (maybe too many) gun laws on the books to do that. The problem is enforcement and low-level crime situations that escalate to violence. For brevity's sake, I will avoid getting into this too much and give but one example: People carry guns to drug-transactions because they cannot rely on law enforcement to help if they get ripped off in a drug transaction. Like it or not, like the attended consequences or not, legalizing personal, recreational drug use would go much farther to reducing violence than passing any gun law you can think of. You don't honestly think the criminals wouldn't just stab each other or beat each other with sticks? It's not the availability of weapons, it's the situation. We didn't have much drug or gangs violence before the crack-down on drugs.Posted by: ldillonThe constitution
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."
Ok so now let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the military should be aloud to carry weaponry. Well I hope so because if you didn't then we would not have a good military. Now let me ask you one more question. Why do they carry weapons? It is to protect themselves. Shouldn't we be aloud to protect ourselves. Think about that. After all it isn't guns who kill people, it is people who kill people. The thing is, with guns, if we outlaw them, that's not stopping the bad guys from getting them, it is stopping the good people who abide by the law. There are already so many illegal guns on the street that law enforcement has their hands tied and banning them would just add that much more. One more reason is that if we ban having a concealed weapon then wouldn't we have to ban being able to carry a pocket knife? Or having a baseball bat. Vehicles kill people to! What would we do without those. Banning handguns would not lessen the amount of guns on the street and would not lessen crime rate. Have you ever had a collection? If you have had one then I am sure that you know how important the things you are collecting are to you. Well a lot of people collect guns and if we outlaw owning guns then their whole collection is going to be stolen. And another thing is that sometimes half of the weaponry doesn't even shoot. What would to do if someone came not your house and demanded all your money? If you didn't have a gun and they did then they would get all your money. However with a trusty weapon on your bedside then you can stop him and not go into poverty. Weapons can be used for a lot more than just defense. A lot of people shoot for sport and hunt to survive. If you didn't have a gun and you were all alone out in the middle of the wilderness then how are you going to kill animals for food. Or what if someone came to your house and took all of your basketballs or baseballs. It is the same thing as someone coming in to your house to take your rifles or shotguns.Posted by: AnonymousLegality Makes It Safer
It should be apparent that when something is legalized, the government can more easily control it. Making firearms illegal will not stop people from owning guns. Meanwhile, criminals are likely to be in possession of such weapons. Making firearms illegal also strips away a law abiding citizen's ability to protect himself/herself from harm. As they would be at a huge disadvantage if faced with a criminal who does have in their possession, a gun.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are a Right
Yes, private citizens should be allowed to legally own guns. Our Founding Fathers guaranteed us the right to be able to overthrow a corrupt government by allowing for us to have guns. We have a Constitutional right to defend ourselves against enemies, foreign and domestic. The Federal Government has the military in its hands, to potentially defend itself against its own people. We absolutely have the right to have weapons to defend ourselves, as well.
Posted by: inaneoneYES, WE NEED TO PROTECT OURSELVES!
People with legal guns do not kill lightly. They use them carefully. People who kill get illegal firearms. As for columbine and other events like it, If someone else had a gun, There would have only had to have been 2 shots.
And yes, we can get overridden with emotion, but so can everyone else. And everybody going wild (hopefully) won't happen.Posted by: TheAntidoterYes, private citizens should be allowed to keep guns.
Historically, the guns used to commit crimes are stolen and black market weapons. Private citizens are threatened by these criminals and need a form of protection for themselves. Criminals will find a way to acquire weapons even if they are illegalized for the private citizen. Then, the private citizen is just less protected than before.
Posted by: AnonymousBut "Well Regulated" needs to be defined and implemented
It's fine for the populace to own arms (not just guns) -- but the same ammendment says "well regulated militia" (important note: it is all one sentence, including the "right to bear" part) -- if you remove the "well regulated" part, that means we could all keep our own private nuclear weapons. So it leaves it up to us to debate and legislate (or "control") where the regulation line is drawn: what can people own, and what can't they own. Further, the 2nd Ammendment says it is the "right of the people", not the "right of the persons" (which is specifically used in other parts of the constitution to convey individual rights) -- this means it is a broad right of the people in general, but not guaranteed to every individual. So, "well regulated" = "control" -- but "control" does not equal "gun ban" -- that concept is a red-herring scare tactic. -- "control" just means rules about who can own, what can they own, and under what circumstances. We already have this -- but it is currently disjointed and uncoordinated. The constitution does not define the lines, so it is up to today's legislation to define the "control" -- not thwart it at every turn.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, because this is an issue settled long ago by the Constitution.
If private citizens were no longer allowed to own guns, we would effectively be outlawing all hunting, as well as depriving the average person of an effective means of self-defense. The Constitution states clearly the right to bear arms, and if it didn't, then the only ones owning guns besides the military and police would be the criminals.
Posted by: NettN355I agree that private citizens should be allowed to own guns if they have never committed a felony and are not considered a danger to society.
I believe that private citizens who live in a free country such as ours should be allowed to own guns. Only people who have committed felonies or are considered a danger to society should not be able to own guns. Private citizens certainly should not be denied the privilege of legally owning guns for self-protection, hunting or target shooting. If private citizens are prohibited from owning guns, they will be at a disadvantage because criminals can always find a way to obtain guns illegally.
Posted by: R0d0FerdyAbsolutely! What would our founding fathers think if we didn’t have the right to bear arms?
Every sane person should have a firearm of some sort for protection. Why? Because the government and criminals have them, legal or not they’ll have them. The playing field should be even. If someone comes into your home with a gun, either to harm or oppress you, every human has the inalienable right to defend themselves and their families.
Posted by: AnonymousBill of RIGHTS not Bill of NEEDS
Free country, dont like it? Get out Lol
the Power of government is LIMITED by the Bill of Rights, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means SCREW OFF! The consequences of Gun Control are written in Blood all throughout history.. Limit Government & Power to the People! May i suggest an Audit of the people that print your money before you ask them to CONTROL your self defense?Posted by: Morpheus19842nd Amendment, Police are not bodyguards/act after the fact, Tyrannical Government Potential,
My headline says it all. If police need guns, and lots of ammo, then citizens need that much as well. 6 bullets will not protect you, when you hit 1/5 bullets, and a gang of people are raiding your home.
We need more gun owners in this country. People need to stop being afraid of guns, learn how to use them, and defend your family members.Posted by: AnonymousYes Its Important
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either
convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of
force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories,
without exception.Posted by: AnonymousThe government will take over!!!
With out the law abiding gun owner the government can do as they wish. Then the government could say "No need for police cost to much because I want the money and the citizens cant do anything because they have no guns." in other words they could force us to fight in wars and never go to school and do nothing about it.
Posted by: Anonymousself defense
Lets look at hurricane Katrina.
You had gangs of thugs walking the streets, fighting and robbing houses, some with people still inside them.
Without a gun, these people would be defenseless against an attack and could be killed or worse, and even with a police force, they had difficulty dealing with the debris and attacks if they tried to respond to these situations.Posted by: AnonymousWhy should have to take severe beating?
Our police departments say that they are not obligated to protect private citizens. That motto on the doors of their patrol cars says "To protect and to serve" is just to make you feel safe. We could stop all these thugs if we didn't have to fight the authorities to do so. Self protection---another God given right that's being taken from us. It just isn't right!
Posted by: AnonymousGuns save lives
Everyone only looks at the bad that guns do. They do not look at the whole picture only what is shown on the news or what the government wants them to see. How many families have been saved because someone in the house had a gun. Imagine sitting at home and someone breaks in, do you let them take your stuff sure so they will leave but what if they have other things on their minds such as rape or murdering you and your family. What are you going to do call the police, good luck with that. In my house I have several firearms including two pistols. If that scenario ever were to happen I would put the criminal down. I would not even think twice. So those of you who think crime will decrease you are sadly mistaken. If they pass any law that does not allow law abiding citizens to own a firearm crime rates in this country will go through the roof and the police will not be able to stop it.
Posted by: AnonymousShall Not Be Infringed
The language of the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights is very simple. It is the shortest Amendment and is the only Amendment with a clear abeyance on the Government.... Shall Not Be Infringed.
The entire system that our Country is built upon is one of Individual Liberties with Individual Responsibilities. Unless or Until I can be proven incapable of exercising my Rights in a responsible way by Due Process of Law I am allowed to own firearms.Posted by: AnonymousGuns Are Your Friends
Guns protect people not kill them. Yes people use guns to kill other people but everyone who is killed at places such as Sandy Hook or the Might-night premier had no had a weapon to defend themselves, right. People who break into a home are more likely not to break in if they know the owner owns a gun. Why? Because the person breaking into your home is their to steal most likely,every criminal breaks into a persons home to get something. But they also are trying not to get caught, ask any criminal if they knew they would get caught they would of done the crime. They would all say no because its not worth it, but if they knew they could commit every crime known to man without getting caught they would do everything bad. So guns should be allowed by the people because people are more likely to think twice about killing someone if they know they might killed. I agree that we should make background checks a universal thing because most criminals buy their gun where they don't get a background check. Plus criminals well have an upper hand if you limit guns because they can still get guns into out county. But us we can't but them they can because they are criminals.
Posted by: Edwardog5Helps Support Family and Self Defense
Self Defense is something everyone is acustomed to when someone is attacking you or your loved ones and family. If all guns ae banned, then how is a man supposed to protect himself when an attacker comes into his home to kill either him or his family? A person should have the right to defend themself in a situation like this. What if you were a hunter that helps support their family with food from the wild? If guns were banned, then the hunter wouldn't be able to support himself and his family, and the family would suffer.
Posted by: AnonymousBecause when seconds count!
The police are only minutes away. Why disarm potential victims? We need less gun control and more idiot control. Criminals don't obey laws. Putting a ban in place wont stop this. If that were the case the drug war wouldn't exist. After all, drugs are illegal. If you don't want a gun, don't get one. But don't try to take mine!
"When people fear the government there is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty!"
~Thomas JeffersonPosted by: AnonymousGuns are a good thing.
People will not give up their guns without a fight. And people already have guns. A lot of guns at that. Also, why is it they can all be protected by guns, but when something goes wrong it's never the person who did it? It's always the gun. Tell me why?
Posted by: AnonymousYes, we need protection from violence.
We need guns because we need self defense. If an armed criminal is armed and trying to shoot someone we should have the right to carry a gun and use it on that person that's the criminal trying to kill you. Also people use it for hunting. Some people like deer jerky and all that kind of jerky and if we don't have our guns how would we be able to do that?
Posted by: AnonymousMexico has stricter gun laws, but higher murder rates per capita. Higher violent crime rates are often found where gun laws are strictest.
Guns in the hands of law-abiding civilians deter crime. Criminals don't want to die or be injured either and are more likely to avoid conflict if there is a higher chance they will be injured severely (i.e. if there are "good guys" with guns). Guns in the hands of law-abiding civilians also deter tyrannical government.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, because of the second amendment.
The second amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Put in terms, infringe means to actively break the terms of a law, so it means that you can not hinder the people’s rights to have arms, so it is against the constitution if you try to make a law that hinders the ownership of guns.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's protection for everyone.
If a bad guy were to walk into a house or school and we had laws against guns we would be defenseless. They can still get a hold of guns, legally or not, but if we all have guns we can stop threats before they can cause too much damage.
Posted by: AnonymousIt is in constitution of the United States.
It is in constitution of the United States. All that is needed to be said. If you are a gun hating liberal then please leave and live in a commie state like China or Cuba. Having guns is the best way to prevent becoming a people under harsh living conditions.
Posted by: AnonymousYes, because if they take away our guns, the bad people will still get them illegally.
If the government takes away our guns, that doesn't mean we will be safer. The thugs will just get the guns illegally, like they already do, so we are just going to get robbed more often because of their knowing we don't have guns. Would you rob me knowing that I had a gun?
Posted by: GunsupporterGuns don't kill, they protect.
Guns protect people. If we take out guns then people are going to resort to violence and most people can't fight for themselves, that's why they have guns, so they can protect themselves, so if you say guns kill and if they get banned, it wouldn't be any different than it is now, except people would be using violence.
Posted by: AnonymousCitizens would have no self defense.
Criminals would either ignore the laws, or find other weapons. Guns don't kill-people do. It is also against the second amendment. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You already need a permit for a gun. There are many regulations. Hunters also need guns.
Posted by: AnonymousI Have a Right and Duty to Defend my Family
Even if a criminal has no weapon to attack with, other than his hands, I want the advantage. If he has brass knuckles, I want a gun. If he has a knife, I want a gun. If he has a sword, I want a gun. If he has a gun, I certainly want a gun. He is the criminal and I am a law-abiding citizen, I should have the advantage.
Criminals by their nature are dangerous -- armed or not -- and even with bans they can be armed because they don't obey the law. As a law-abiding citizen, people around me are safer when I have a gun. Take away my gun and the criminals win.Posted by: AnonymousGun control debate
According to the FBI, between 2006 and 2010, 47,856 people have died gun related deaths. That would be 34 people every day (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls). Over the past few months, there has been a heated debate about gun control. There have been many deaths in the past in relation to guns, therefore making many people be against the access to guns in the United States. I am opposed to this viewpoint. I say this because there are many things that people do not realize like the fact that criminals are criminals, they will find a way, and the fact that crime rates have risen in countries that have banned firearms.
Some look at that 34 people a day and are outraged. I, however, see that this helps my point. About 45 percent of these deaths are delivered from guns from the black market, and 40 percent are the killing of criminals with legal guns. So I do not care about that 15%, right? No. I care about the 15 percent of criminals attacking innocent or innocent people killing innocent people with legal guns, and I find that a problem, but this will continue to happen, even if there are laws that outlaw all guns. People will buy weapons from the black market anyway. I say this because if there is a criminal with a weapon trying to break in or has broken in, if I call 911, it would take too long for the police to come. Should I just give the guy some tea and discuss politics until the police arrive, or do I want to protect myself and my family from harm while the police are getting there? I would want to protect myself against an unstable criminal.
Criminals are criminals. They will never learn. Mentally unstable criminals will find a way, no matter what law is in their way. Since when have criminals abided by laws? If these laws are passed it will only encourage crimes that show the government who is in charge. In the US, 44.1% of criminals go to jail more than once. Rehabilitation is a farce. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism)
In England, where all firearms are banned, the crime rates have risen 89% from what they were before there was a ban on firearms. (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/11/gun-crime-soars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528) This happens because nobody has a form of protection. Nobody can brandish a handgun to a threat to scare them away. It may seem scary to have people have the power to kill you all the time, but one must trust others and dismiss any paranoia that could result by this.
Guns do not decide to get up and shoot themselves. They must have a finger to pull the trigger. A human finger. People kill people. We humans are animate, alive, and we have the freedom of choice. Why should we change what is working? We should stay with the tried and true, and not risk the freedom of our people.Posted by: AnonymousYes, taking guns will not stop killersI
It doesn't matter if you take guns or ant weapons and you just leave us with sticks and stones, we will find a way to kill each other. If you do take guns you will start an outrage of many people and it will be a war and many people will die. So no, guns should not be taken away.
Posted by: AnonymousIf we can drive cars safely and way more are killed buy automobiles
Lets ban cars because they can be considered more dangerous than guns.
This to me a middle class nobody is a distraction to keep the focus off the real problems in this country.
Because the political parties would have to take blame for being infested with greed and they have made mistakes both republican and democrats are guilty of the results of our economy..
And they are not positive it will turn around so they are preparing the way so that when or if times become worse they can remain in power and control citizens. Paving the way to heard the sheeple to the slaughter. To much hype has been placed on this for the citizens not to see through it the reality is the USA is in trouble and the politicians are corrupt enough to let it go down the tube instead of standing up to the problems because they may appear politically incorrect. And we the sheeple will pay the price and possibly loose every thing our founding fathers fought and died for. This includes loosing our freedoms.Posted by: AnonymousWe will always have guns
Our constitution has the second amendment so if necessary we could defend ourselves against criminals and even the government if they`re trying to take total control or take away our rights. 88.8% of Americans have legally owned guns, I`ll bet every one of those people would rather die than give up the right to own their firearm(s). So when the president and other government officials try to take away guns from law abiding citizens little by little it makes me suspicious of them trying to make it harder to defend ourselves against government so they can do what ever they want without our consent. If you have any political questions on gun control you can contact me at Anthonyjayce@comcast.net I`ll do my best to answer.
Posted by: AnonymousStrong societies have a way to defend themselves
Even if we wanted to take guns away from all people in the U.S. we could not take guns away from all people all over the world. Therefore we would be more susceptible to others attacking and invading this country, (other countries find it much more difficult to invade a country when they have to fend off the country's military and citizens) and to government corruption. What did Hitler do when he took over Germany, he took away all the guns. I'm not saying that this would happen with our government all I'm saying is that this is something we responsible citizens should concern our selves with. A gun less society is a defenseless society.
Posted by: AnonymousSafety
There is no short answer to this extended topic, all I can say is that there is never any way to get dangerous weapons out of the hands that mean to do people harm. What can be done is simple, people who care about other people, who do not want to do harm, they should be trained to handle these dangerous weapons. This way they can protect each other and those who cannot defend themselves. How do we identify the "good" people; we don't. All we can do is make guns legal, make training available, have proper screening to the best of our abilities, teach people about how dangerous these weapons are, and try to explain to the citizens the necessity to step up to the plate and take responsibility to defend the innocent. "Bad" people will not go away, even if we manage to disarm them, all we can do is to educate and arm the "good" people so that we can have a fighting chance. Safety isn't someone else's problem, its every individuals problem.
Posted by: AnonymousIt is about trust.
Trust between the government and the governed. Trust between neighbors. If we can't trust our government, our neighbors or ourselves, then why even bother with a representative government? All liberties require responsibility. And, as the citizens in Libya and Syria might well counsel, liberties that are given away are costly to win back. As Benjamin Franklin would tell us, those who would trade liberty for safety would deserve neither.
Posted by: AnonymousAbsolutely
This is what people say: if we outlaw guns then people won't get shot! WRONG. England outlawed guns, and guess what? HUGE black markets arise and criminals make five time the money they used to, funded by innocents who just want a weapon. And think about all the guns that have already been made! MILLIONS! You can't control the ones already out there! And the guns aren't just weapons the mentally insane people SOMEHOW get access to to kill people, they are TOOLS that are used to hunt and defend people from the crazy nutjobs. If you started making mental issues visible on background checks, this would happen WAY LESS. Banning guns would just make criminals happier by bringing them WAY more money. So don't make guns illegal.
Posted by: AnonymousQuit Basing Your Opinions Emotionally
'Guns kill people and that's bad, we should ban guns'. Great idea considering that, ya know, guns decide to get up and shoot people themselves. Car accidents kill far more people each year than guns, should we ban automobiles? No. Whatever law you pass, there will still be guns. There will still be mentally ill individuals (which are the real problem), and there will still be violence. No what you 'anti-gun' sheep think, guns will always be around. Criminals will always get guns no matter what laws. Even if something is illegal, you can still get it; just ask a drug addict. Someone mentioned that if there were no guns then it would be impossible to kill people in mass murders. False. I'm assuming 9/11 was caused by a gun? And that bombs, knives, and biological weapons don't exist? Fertilizer is easier to get than a gun and it can be used to kill far more people. Imagine if in the Sandy Hook or the Movie Theater shooting a bomb was used instead of a gun. And as for the individual who said to make guns 'impossible to get illegally'; that is honestly one of the stupidest things I have heard in my life. You assume that there are not other countries in the world or organizations that people may get weapons from.
Making guns illegal won't solve our problem, get that out of your head. If private citizens own guns then they are more prone to protect themselves in assaults from criminals or home invasions. And all of these people claiming that normal people cause these shootings? I'd say about 90% of all these shootings were caused by mentally ill individuals whom obtained their weapons either illegally or borrowed from someone else; not bought. Also, for the individual who said if there weren't any guns it would be a lot harder to kill any other way; ever heard of that case in Japan where a man killed an entire classroom with just a knife? Oops, guess they were wrong, a knife can't kill someone only a gun can. Get your heads together and stop being naive and foolish about this topic. Use logic not emotion. And logically, taking away guns makes zero sense whatsoever.Posted by: AnonymousWE THE PEOPLE
The American government can't maintain this country without the Peoples help and any attempt at undermining the fundamental structure Our forefathers laid will cause the destruction of morality, values and Justice promulgating socialism like bubonic plague. WE THE PEOPLE ARE NOT PUPPETS. Criminals will find ways to further their agenda,besides whose going to save those individuals who give up their gun rights ? if your choice of government is socialism give up your citizenship move abroad just don't infringe on others rights because lunatics happen to have guns.
Posted by: AnonymousThey should be legal
If citizens would have guns they would be able to defend themselves and their families. If you where walking down the street and someone tried to mug you you could pull out your gun and say, back off or I will shoot. The second amendment states that the the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. I believe that was made because the United States of America overthrew an oppressive government and the framers wanted the American people to do so if necessary if the government gets out of hand. Some say that is lunacy, but it is how our nation was founded, by defeating the greatest world power of its time.
Posted by: AnonymousViolent people probably don't care about gun laws!
Basically, the people who do follow the law get punished. It happened in this country in 1787. Shays rebellion is the reason we have the bill of rights. It's a shame how extremist warp reality and try to twist the masses in doing what they want. Not much different than a delusion person with a gun. What really happened in that school? And then a prisoner with no ties goes nuts. Really? A lot of people are finding this nonsense hard to believe. Puppet master anyone?
Posted by: AnonymousBasic right to self-defense
Our founding fathers saw the need for all citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms. Early American settlers viewed the right to arms as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):
1 - enabling the people to organize a militia system.
2 - participating in law enforcement;
3 - deterring tyrannical government;
4 - repelling invasion;
5 - suppressing insurrection;
6 - facilitating a natural right of self-defensePosted by: AnonymousPrivate citizens should be allowed their second amendment right to carry firearms.
It is a fact that in cities and states where private citizens do not own firearms, there is a very high crime rate. Why is this? Because the people aren't able to defend themselves and their families against others. A right that needs no amendment. A great example is an area where all the guns were taken away. The people thought they were in for an era of peace. The next decade became a nightmare full of the worst crimes ever committed. That area was Germany, taken over by Nazi's.
Posted by: elen111Outright banning of all gun ownership is unnecessary, but this right needs to be earned.
I would be frightened if all gun ownership were banned. I live in a remote area where a gun might be the only thing standing between me and an attacker, even if it is unloaded and only used to scare off an attacker. But I think you need to earn the right to own a gun, and I think the requirements should be strict and rigorously enforced, with severe punishments for violation.
Posted by: Th4FireConstitutional right
As an citizen of the united states of America, I am afforded the right to bear arms in order to protect myself, my family, and my property against those that trespass against me. Also, I am afforded the right to bear arms for hunting and recreation. Furthermore, if not the most important reason, I am afforded the right to bear arms to defend myself from foreign military forces, and from a tyrannical and oppressive government when time comes to start over from square one. By the way, accuratedalton53 is absolutely wrong. In fact, I believe that everyone that said no, needs to re-read history, oh yeah, nobody is responsible for your safety and security except for you.
Posted by: Anonymous
I don't think people should be able to own guns because owning guns causes more problems than it solves.
It has been shown time and time again that countries with strict gun laws enjoy low rates of violent crime. Also, people who own guns for protection often kill their own friends and family by accident, and children often have accidents when playing with loaded firearms they find at home. People say that "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns," but while criminals in countries like Japan do have guns, they generally only use them to fight amongst themselves. Gun deaths of regular citizens are extremely rare.
Posted by: H4n5FreexThere is no reason to own a gun when you have a police force and an army.
When the second amendment was put in the Constitution, there were no police forces and no standing army. We do not need the second amendment's rights anymore. The Constitution explicitly states the the purpose of owning a gun in the United States is so that citizens can form a militia. We don't need to form militias anymore! We have a police force and an army for that. The Constitution does not protect ownership of arms for any other purpose other than for forming a militia. Besides, the traditional arguments for hunting and self-defense are obsolete (hunting) and misguided (self-defense).
Posted by: AnonymousIT IS SERIOUS TIME
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. But guns help.
It is very tempting when you have a power of instant kill in your hand. While there are people who own guns only for self-defense, there are much more people out there who would abuse their power and use it so casually. Knowing that you have a power to kill, a quarrel or a fight could easily turn into mass murder without a second thought.
It is easy to say that people would still find ways to buy guns illegally even if they are banned; however, the number of gun owners would surely be reduced. Besides, by imposing the law, the police would be able to differentiate that the people who own gun are definitely using it for illegal purposes.
Statistics tell. The U.S has an average of over 9000 gun deaths annually while England only has 18 gun deaths. Why? Because England have a very strict law for people to bear arms. Countries that allowed people to own gun for reasons such as self-defense are simply confessing that they can’t protect you under the law of the state and are neglecting responsibility of social security.
Do you want to live in a society where you tell your children that those armed people are criminals, or do you want them to know that everyone owns it and use it for survival?
What would you think… if you have to live in the society where your hotheaded friends and neighbors possess a gun?
What would the citizens think… if they know they are living in a country where people are killed by gunfire every day?
What would tourists think… if they are from a country where gun is illegal and they see ordinary people with gun in their back pocket as they walk on the street?
What would the world think… if they see people using gun out of control killing each other, and find out that the government allowed them to use it in the first place?
Allowing people to own gun for protection is naïve and ignorance of how chaotic the world might become.Posted by: AnonymousTHEY ARE DANGEROUS!!!!
Guns Should Be Illegal Should people have the free will to possess fire arms? No! On December 15, 1791 a law was stated that an individual had the right to possess fire arms. Nowadays this law has caused the death to many people in America, and who do we have to blame? Former presidents of the U.S have been too blind to see the damage that weapons are causing. On December 27th 2012 a shooting occurred at “Sandy Hook” elementary school, causing the death to 20 children between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. This event and many others in the past have caused people to debate whether it should still be legal for someone to carry a firearm. Every day we read stories about the deaths of hundreds of people just because of weapons.
The US averages 9,146 deaths just caused by fire arms a year. The UK only averages 18. What a difference! If only the US stated a law that made weapons illegal, then less people would die , for sure. If people are allowed to carry weapons, how can we trust people? Stricter gun laws wills result into less shootings. Why do people need guns? For protection? There is no need for a dreadful, dangerous and deadly weapon to protect you. If guns were made illegal, the amount of deaths in the US would drop by thousands.
There are many different ways that people get influenced in our modern day, such as shooting games, films, books and also their parents. It is said that John Lennon’s killer Mark Chapman killed John Lennon because of a book he read “The Catcher in the Rye”. This shows that even the most peaceful things can cause a historical event. Nowadays new games and movies are released every year, and what people don’t know is that violent games and movies can influence people to become mental, crazy and viscous humans. Parents have huge impacts on the growth of a child, why don’t you tell your child that guns are horrific.
Presidents in the US don’t do anything about the dreadful events happening in America. Even though thousands of people die every day, can’t they make a law to illegalize guns and go from thousands of deaths to hundreds of deaths. Allowing people to own weapons also allows mentally sick, mentally disordered or mentally disturbed people to walk around with a gun in their hands killing anyone they see. Might as well just bomb the whole country if you want people to die every day. Research shows that every 5 days, somewhere in the US, there is a shooting going on. Why not just end this, stop the shooting! Just say no more weapons.
78% of murders are from weapons. How terrible. Won’t it be much easier to just ban all these horrific weapons and live life peacefully.Posted by: EMOLADYTORI13Enough Violence
I am tired of people saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "If citizens carried guns, the crime rate would go down." Hah. That worked really well at Aurora. And what on earth does a regular citizen need an assault rifle for? Face it: Most people only carry a gun because they're allowed to. I guarantee that over half of the people who own guns do not use them. People need to understand that guns do more harm than good. If people like the shooters at Aurora and Connecticut were not allowed to purchase guns, then almost 50 innocent people would still be alive right now. Not enforcing gun control is insulting the memories of those slain. If we put a ban on guns, no more innocent civilians would be forced to suffer because of a few madmen.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns Should Be Illegal
Should people have the free will to possess fire arms? No! On December 15, 1791 a law was stated that an individual had the right to possess fire arms. Nowadays this law has caused the death to many people in America, and who do we have to blame? Former presidents of the U.S have been too blind to see the damage that weapons are causing. On December 27th 2012 a shooting occurred at “Sandy Hook” elementary school, causing the death to 20 children between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. This event and many others in the past have caused people to debate whether it should still be legal for someone to carry a firearm. Every day we read stories about the deaths of hundreds of people just because of weapons.
The US averages 9,146 deaths just caused by fire arms a year. The UK only averages 18. What a difference! If only the US stated a law that made weapons illegal, then less people would die , for sure. If people are allowed to carry weapons, how can we trust people? Stricter gun laws wills result into less shootings. Why do people need guns? For protection? There is no need for a dreadful, dangerous and deadly weapon to protect you. If guns were made illegal, the amount of deaths in the US would drop by thousands.
There are many different ways that people get influenced in our modern day, such as shooting games, films, books and also their parents. It is said that John Lennon’s killer Mark Chapman killed John Lennon because of a book he read “The Catcher in the Rye”. This shows that even the most peaceful things can cause a historical event. Nowadays new games and movies are released every year, and what people don’t know is that violent games and movies can influence people to become mental, crazy and viscous humans. Parents have huge impacts on the growth of a child, why don’t you tell your child that guns are horrific.
Presidents in the US don’t do anything about the dreadful events happening in America. Even though thousands of people die every day, can’t they make a law to illegalize guns and go from thousands of deaths to hundreds of deaths. Allowing people to own weapons also allows mentally sick, mentally disordered or mentally disturbed people to walk around with a gun in their hands killing anyone they see. Might as well just bomb the whole country if you want people to die every day. Research shows that every 5 days, somewhere in the US, there is a shooting going on. Why not just end this, stop the shooting! Just say no more weapons.
78% of murders are from weapons. How terrible. Won’t it be much easier to just ban all these horrific weapons and live life peacefully. Most people say guns are used for self-defense, if guns are illegal, then no one can kill you from a gun so there’s a 90% chance you won’t be attacked. People abuse the use of guns. There are many different ways of protecting yourself without needing a gun. Why not make the world a better place? It would be so much easier to live peacefully, instead of needing violence in this world.
On the 20th of July 2012 12 people died and 59 people were wounded at a midnight cinema showing the new batman film near Denver, Colorado because a man came from the exit and started shooting people for no reason. If guns were illegal no one would’ve died and people would’ve had a relaxing night. Someone said “I was wondering if it was real life or a dream.” Imagine if you were there. How would you feel? We should ban guns in order to stop the harming of human beings. Violence if for disgusting, horrible and dreadful people.
27% of people in America agree that firearms should be taken away from people because no one except for the police is responsible enough to possess a powerful, destructive and damaging weapons. Why should people be trusted with guns when people aren’t even responsible enough to drive a car. There are so many unnecessary deaths. Guns are only adding more deaths to the US average deaths. Some people say guns are good, they protect the family. What? Why would you need a gun to protect your family. If you’re scared at night, lock the door. There are so many easy ways to be safe without needing a fire arm.
Living with fear. Why should we hide? Why do we have to be scared when we leave the house? It is a serious time. Too many acts of violence are happening in the US nowadays, and we need to stop this one way or another. I don’t understand why people would want to keep guns in the first place. How do guns help. Guns are not the answer to freedom and peace. There is already enough violence in the US, why must we encourage people to kill? Guns don’t only cause other people to kill but in 2005 17,002 suicides were Committed with guns. Take them away!Posted by: AnonymousGun control
I think that it is important that the bullets should not be available for everybody. There should be a plausible reason to buy bullets. Because if there are no bullets, the guns will be useless. No bullets, means no guns. It's like car without wheel. I believe that this will reduce the crime rate. The criminals may have the guns, but they will be useless without bullets
Posted by: CantiveTake 'em away!
Most of you are morons and should not be entrusted with the responsibility of a firearm. Turn it in. Your government knows best. Do what you are told and shut up. By the by, N3rOnKrool is wrong. The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The bit about the "well-regulated militia" is an ENABLING clause. It gives one of the reasons for the following part. It is not meant to restrict the right. Regulations are most certainly an infringement. It's militias which are meant to be regulated, not the right. And armed private citizens are the regulatory mechanism.
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are not the answer
Hey, I've got a great idea! Let's give all the kindergartners AK-47's next time! Idiots. We need to restrict guns. Fighting fire with fire will burn down the whole world. Tighter gun control is the only way this can be avoided in the future. Just because the 2nd Amendment allows you to own guns does not mean you have to, or need to.
Posted by: AnonymousDangerous to Own Guns
All the school shootings so far indicate that if private citizens legally owned guns, it would be a huge threat to society since anybody can shoot anybody at anytime. Although it's an issue of self-protection and human rights, owning guns is illegal in Canada, and Canadians still live happily ever after
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are bad. Period.
They are just bad. Do you see on the news, a while ago a father didn't put his gun away. His daughter got hold of it shot herself in the toe. Luckily, she didn't die. You can't just think you put your gun in a safe place, you must know, especially when there are children in the house.
Posted by: AnonymousIt's not safe.
You walk into an establishment in your local town. You see a guy carrying a gun into the store. There’s a sign on the glass door of the store that says guns are allowed to be carried into this business. Does this sound like a safe environment to you? There have been many discussions whether it’s an exceptional idea to acknowledge ammunition in public areas or not. My opinion on this argument is that it’s an unacceptable idea to admit arms because of all the dangerous and violent people out there.
Many citizens think it would be a more suitable idea to acknowledge arms. They feel that they would be safer to have a defense. I disagree because it would be safer if they did not have protection. That is because people could use the ammunition for more than defense, like using it as a weapon to rob a store or shooting someone when they get drunk and out of control.
Many people who disagree with me would say that only the owners should be allowed to have arms. That is also an awful idea. If the owners are admitted to have them, then the workers will want to be able to use the gun. That would make the ammunition more accessible to them. The workers who work late at night might get tired or aggravated. Then the weapon may become a toy or something exciting to do. They would act out of control and things could go greatly wrong.
Sometimes citizens say it’s a swell idea to allow it because then fewer criminals will want to rob the store because they are aware that they are not the only ones in the room with a gun. That is untrue. That will just make them feel like it's more of a challenge. They just want to accept it. A challenge is more exciting in some people's opinions. These are major reasons why I think we should not allow guns in our public areas. It’s not a completely safe idea. So I think we should talk to the committee about it and make a change in our community.Posted by: AnonymousNo more Guns!
I hate Barack Obama but I do agree on this topic. I love Ron Paul because we believe the same things. We both think that you should be able to do what you want unless you are going to hurt someone else. Having a gun is hurting someone else if you use it because you are killing them. Even though I agree with Obama on this, I do understand his plan. He is doing this so that people who own property won't be able to defend it when stupid democrats like him try to steal it.
Posted by: AnonymousPrivate citizens should not be allowed to legally own guns because guns are for killing.
If you have a gun for protection, to stop the criminal you shoot him. Technically, that's the problem with guns. People feel like they have a right to shoot someone if they own a gun. I personally think this is wrong because there has been a lot of shootings recently and there wouldn't be quite as many if we tried to ban guns. UNLESS a person has a job that includes a gun, for example a police man. Because then he can threaten the criminal. I know that we won't be able to ban guns completley, but we can try.
Posted by: AnonymousNo guns
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. But guns help. It is very tempting when you have a power of instant kill in your hand. While there are people who own guns only for self-defense, there are much more people out there who would abuse their power and use it so casually. Knowing that you have a power to kill, a quarrel or a fight could easily turn into mass murder without a second thought. It is easy to say that people would still find ways to buy guns illegally even if they are banned; however, the number of gun owners would surely be reduced. Besides, by imposing the law, the police would be able to differentiate that the people who own gun are definitely using it for illegal purposes. Statistics tell. The U.S has an average of over 9000 gun deaths annually while England only has 18 gun deaths. Why? Because England have a very strict law for people to bear arms. Countries that allowed people to own gun for reasons such as self-defense are simply confessing that they can’t protect you under the law of the state and are neglecting responsibility of social security. Do you want to live in a society where you tell your children that those armed people are criminals, or do you want them to know that everyone owns it and use it for survival? What would you think… if you have to live in the society where your hotheaded friends and neighbors possess a gun? What would the citizens think… if they know they are living in a country where people are killed by gunfire every day? What would tourists think… if they are from a country where gun is illegal and they see ordinary people with gun in their back pocket as they walk on the street? What would the world think… if they see people using gun out of control killing each other, and find out that the government allowed them to use it in the first place? Allowing people to own guns for protection is naïve and ignorant of how chaotic the world might become.
Posted by: AnonymousNo way!
All I have to say is that guns are made to kill. The U.S has an average of 9,146 people dead annually and England only has 18 gun deaths because of its strict gun law. If guns were illegal in the U.S. the crime rate would be significantly lower.
Posted by: AnonymousNo
'Guns kill people and that's bad, we should ban guns'. Great idea considering that, ya know, guns decide to get up and shoot people themselves. Car accidents kill far more people each year than guns, should we ban automobiles? No. Whatever law you pass, there will still be guns. There will still be mentally ill individuals (which are the real problem), and there will still be violence. No what you 'anti-gun' sheep think, guns will always be around. Criminals will always get guns no matter what laws. Even if something is illegal, you can still get it; just ask a drug addict. Someone mentioned that if there were no guns then it would be impossible to kill people in mass murders. False. I'm assuming 9/11 was caused by a gun? And that bombs, knives, and biological weapons don't exist? Fertilizer is easier to get than a gun and it can be used to kill far more people. Imagine if in the Sandy Hook or the Movie Theater shooting a bomb was used instead of a gun. And as for the individual who said to make guns 'impossible to get illegally'; that is honestly one of the stupidest things I have heard in my life. You assume that there are not other countries in the world or organizations that people may get weapons from. Making guns illegal won't solve our problem, get that out of your head. If private citizens own guns then they are more prone to protect themselves in assaults from criminals or home invasions. And all of these people claiming that normal people cause these shootings? I'd say about 90% of all these shootings were caused by mentally ill individuals whom obtained their weapons either illegally or borrowed from someone else; not bought. Also, for the individual who said if there weren't any guns it would be a lot harder to kill any other way; ever heard of that case in Japan where a man killed an entire classroom with just a knife? Oops, guess they were wrong, a knife can't kill someone only a gun can. Get your heads together and stop being naive and foolish about this topic. Use logic not emotion. And logically, taking away guns makes zero sense whatsoever.
Posted by: AnonymousSo many unnecessary deaths!
I simply cannot get a grasp on what it is about AMERICANS that make them want guns SO badly. As someone brought up earlier, there are an excess of TEN THOUSAND deaths a year caused by guns, while in countries with strict gun control laws like the UK there were 18 last year! Why won't people open their eyes?!? An to the people who say "Oh but if there aren't guns then people will use knives and other weapons", yes that is true, but there is no possible way that horrible massacres like Columbine and Sandy Hook, where children where killed, could have been committed using a knife. As for people saying that it's for self defense- if there are stricter gun laws, the attacker will not have a gun! Self defense courses will be enough to protect the citizens of the US from this. As for people who think that guns "Keep the government in line", there is no way to sugar coat this - your stupid. If you even knew a fraction about the military, you would know that with a flick of his wrist the president COULD literally blow up the entire town that you are living in. Oh yeah AR 15's are really going to protect you from that...
Guns don't care who they kill or mutilate. Kid's, Seniors, a gun doesn't differentiate between them. It is up to us to decide who the victims of guns will be. We have to stop the killing.Posted by: jakoplant1Connecticut shooting
20 kids and 7 adults are dead today because 1 person had access to 3 (!) different types of weapon. Insanity! There is something very wrong with this country - mass killings, executions in the middle of day in New York, Chicago gang wars, prescription drugs galore, welfare, mentally sick (mentally disordered, mentally disturbed - whatever) who are free of control... God! Help us all...
Posted by: AnonymousGo Good Without Guns
Guns are only adding to the already horrible state of the USA. People are killing others with guns for no good or liable reason. Guns should not be held by un needed citizens.
Posted by: TinkerGuns should not be allowed!
There is no more need for innocent citizens to get harmed. America is stupid for letting guns be legal. That is just stupid. Innocent kids died at Sandy Hook and at Wisconsin Sikh temple for no reason. If there were no assault weapons not that many kids would've died but now there lay 20 kids dead and 7 adults for no reason. What if it was 1 of our kids? We would've felt bad feels for those parents whose kids died.
Posted by: AnonymousSupporting gun ownership is absurd
Republicans and gun lobbyists don't make any sense on this issue. Read Apologise.org for a satirical take on their logic. People needing guns to defend themselves against criminals and the mentally disturbed with guns is just a stupid argument. If guns weren't made available in the first place, there wouldn't be a need. Also, how are six and seven year olds going to defend themselves? Should we give them guns too?
Posted by: Anonymous18 children dead in Connecticutq
When does this lunacy stop? There is no reason for a private citizen to own an assault weapon. There is no reason for a private citizen to own a handgun. The result of rampant gun ownership leads to far many victims and for what? To protect a Constitutional right to bear arms in a militia? What militia is responsible for this horrendous massacre? So tired of the NRA and its irresponsible membership.
Posted by: AnonymousFight violence with violence
Fighting violence with violence is going to cause more violence. 'Protecting' yourselves is also another way of saying killing someone else. A life is a life. A better way of 'solving' the problem, would be to make sure, that there is no problem in the first place. Plus, the mental trauma of any ordinary person shooting dead another one (even a bad guy) is deadly enough itself.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, because there have been too many deaths.
When there is a gun attack, the likelihood of people dying is much higher than with other weapons such as knives. 70 percent of all murders are committed with guns. In other countries, there are very few "killing sprees". There are major gun attacks happening in the US every year and it is because the gun control laws are too lenient.
Posted by: AnonymousNo
To people who argue that guns should be allowed since they are used for self-defense only, I ask one question: Why not suit ourselves with nuclear war heads? Why just stop with guns? I as a citizen promise to use the war head only in self-defense. If anything, guns do not bring solution to an issue.
Posted by: Anonymouswhy do we need them
7.8% out of 10% of murders are from guns. Why do we need these harmful weapons? If nobody(exept for police)have guns we would be a lot more safe. I know your saying to yourself its self defense. Well if the person who has the weapon doesnt have a gun you 9 times out of 10 wont get killed.
Posted by: AnonymousNo One should own guns
This is a very broad question and has a variety of answers. The handling of guns is no joke; if it is misused it can be fatal not only to the victim but also to the user itself. It can have a massive psychological effect. Guns have no positive effect; all that it causes is chaos and death. People can argue that guns are useful if they are used for self defence however statistics beg to differ.
Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms. This is a huge statistic; more than half murders that have been committed were due to firearms. However this can be stopped if there is a ban on the utilization of firearms. We can cut down the amount deaths. It has been proven from time and time again those countries with strict gun laws have low rates of violent crimes.
People who own guns for protection often kill their own friends and family by accident. Oscar Pistorius is a Paralympics runner from South Africa. It was the middle of the night when it happened. Oscar Pistorius was alone at home with his girlfriend. Pistorius thought an intruder had entered his house and not having legs to run he felt vulnerable. He took out his 9mm handgun and shot the intruder. He immediately got up and put on his fake legs to check out who the intruder was. When he saw the intruder, it turned out to actually be his girlfriend. He had accidentally killed her all because of a gun. This is another reason why the ownership of guns should be banned. An innocent woman was killed for no reason, it was an accident. An innocent woman would have been able to live if Pistorius didn’t own a gun. Not only did he kill someone he loved but just imagine the psychological effect on him.Posted by: AnonymousFreedom does NOT mean having the right to own firearms
Owning a gun does not mean you are free! People who believe it does are sadly uneducated & need to open their eyes. Just look at the other countries who don't allow guns / pen knifes. We are not oppressed in the Uk! Far from it. We are a lot more free and not trapped individually, against our own neighbours.
Individualist logic will only trap you into not evolving as a unified nation.
They need to announce a realistic date to hand-in all fire arms which if not abided by will endure a fine. We did it in the Uk with Pen knifes and it worked. It will take time but at least it's a long over due - positive step.Posted by: leonwillisguns aren't toys.
Why do we need guns to protect ourselves? Oh.. I don't know? Maybe because other people will shoot at you and you have to defend yourself. Right? But what if all the guns are banned? And only people with licence use them? That makes more sense. Then why doesn't the government just make restrictions on guns? Wouldn't that be easier? I didn't see the Australian Government take much time to do something about it? Then why is it so hard for other countries like America to take care of this situation? Innocent lives are at steak. . .
Posted by: AnonymousPEOPLE ABUSE THE USE OF GUNS!
We can protect ourselves in different ways without using guns. There are many individuals who abuse the use of guns, because it is easy to kill someone with them. In the United States the latest update of people who have been murdered by firearms was 8,775. This is not including the people who were killed with firearms on accident and accidents sadly happen all the time.
Posted by: AnonymousPrivate citizens should not be able to own firearms
Although some people think that guns cause safety they don't first of all it creates a very unsafe environment for the people around us. Especially kids. They are the future and over 50 kids were killed each month( estimate). Imagine walking into a restaurant and seeing a person with a gun. They could go on one of their crazy yahoos and hurt people. What about the trayvon martin case. Don't you think that having guns is not the best idea. Otherwise this poor boy would still be alive. I hope that you guys who said yes change your mind because you are supporting a dangerous world to come.
Posted by: AnonymousMake world a safer place!
Most of us agree with owning guns for our own safety and because of insecurity... But, my brothers and sisters if we don't make this tough decision then we would always be unsafe and in the world of insecurity. We often use guns for our own means and desires which makes it difficult to find the culprit and make our lives secure. How often we have seen poor and needy people illegally owning weapons to rob banks, shops and people. It never stops. We are civilians, we should be like one and let the authorities handle the safety and security of us. how often we due to pressures of life get on this path and can't control our emotions and use guns for our own means. If only the authorities will have guns and not the civilians then the crimes would for sure decrease and riots and robberies will have a great fall as well. It would be easier to catch the people with firearms and would be punished for it. It will definitely make the world a safer place where you have no fear of being shot dead by any civilian. You can penalize the authorities for there mismanagement and they will also have to step up to the mark. Eventually, life would be less of unnecessary worries and world a safer place if civilians are banned of owning or carrying guns. Thank you!
Posted by: AnonymousLook at the stats..
The stats don't support that guns prevent deaths...to the contrary. There are many examples of countries around the world with gun control with much lower gun deaths per capita than the US. Lets stop this madness now...our freedoms are often limited to protect us...and we need to limit the type and number of guns owned in this country!
Posted by: AnonymousPrivate citizens should not be allowed to own guns, because too many people use them carelessly.
Although the laws in the United States state that citizens have the right to bear arms, the law was written prior to the state the country is in today. People tend to use guns carelessly and in extreme situations, like the massacre at Columbine High School. That tragedy could have been avoided if guns were not in the household.
Posted by: AccurateDalton53All stats say that gun control prevents gun homocide
The United States is ranked at No. 1 for civilian gun ownership in comparison with all other industrialized countries. There are approximately 88.8 firearms for every 100 people in the U.S. In the past 14 years, the year with the greatest number of homicides caused by a firearm occurred in 2006, when 10,225 people were killed by the use of a gun. The rate of private gun ownership in the United Kingdom is 6.72 firearms per 100 people. In 2009, only 18 people were murdered with a firearm. Annual firearm suicides within the United States are high as well. In 2005, 17,002 suicides were committed using a firearm.
In the United Kingdom there are 0.22 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants; for comparison, the figure for the United States was 3.0. This is based on a 14 year study.
This simple statistic proves that US citizens are 13 more prone to gun related murder than the UK. That means that when you travel from the UK to the US you are 13 times more likely to be killed by a gun.
Gun control saves lives.Posted by: donaldmgatesNo, of course not!
Well, I am doing a debate on handguns, and my side is supposed to say that we should limit the ownership of handguns. There is always a possibility that someone will shoot another person accidentally. According to Forbes.com, there are 789 deaths annually from accidents. I mean you can't let the bad people have them. That is why we have background checks!
Posted by: AnonymousGuns are weapons of mass destruction.
A previous post asked "Why ban nuclear weapons if guns are legal? If we believe that guns should be legal for most people, then why don't we believe that we should allow most citizens and most nations to have nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Guns are used in the same manner as nuclear weapons."
One of the respondents said "Guns are not WMD" (Weapons of mass destruction). Really? How many people does a mass make? 5? 10? 15? 20? Because all these numbers have been surpassed in recent shooting incidents.
Think of those incidents where fewer than five people are killed. In the 150 days or so, since the Sandy Hook elementary tragedy, there have been more than 3,300 deaths. Now extrapolate that over the rest of the year and we are on pace for more than 10,000. Is that mass large enough?Posted by: AnonymousMake guns illegal for our safety!
Firearms should not be allowed in the United States for many reasons. One reason is because of the shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School committed by Adam Lanza. Lanza killed 20 innocent children aged 5-10. The children would still be here, enjoying life with their parents. However, Lanza did not allow that to happen. Another reason firearms should not be allowed in the U.S. is because of the shooting in Colorado in the Aurora theater. James Holmes was the culprit. Holmes killed 12 people. In addition, 70 other people were wounded in the incident.
Posted by: AnonymousNO GUN CONTROL!
I don't think people should be able to own guns because owning guns causes more problems than it solves.
It has been shown time and time again that countries with strict gun laws enjoy low rates of violent crime. Also, people who own guns for protection often kill their own friends and family by accident, and children often have accidents when playing with loaded firearms they find at home. People say that "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns," but while criminals in countries like Japan do have guns, they generally only use them to fight amongst themselves. Gun deaths of regular citizens are extremely rare.
Posted by: AnonymousThe Right of Having Guns is Abused
If you think gun ownership of all men is justifiable , then you should agree that nuclear weapon ownership of all countries should be defended. However, the U.S. does just the opposite! Letting everyone have a gun is just like letting N. Korea have a nuclear weapon. Do you like that?
For those who claim guns can protect personal safety, you feel safe because you assume no one has a grenade launcher or any kind of weapon more powerful than a gun.
Our safety won't be protected by weapons because as long as there are weapons in others' hands, there are threats to us. It is the trust to the society and the consensus on limiting gun uses that can free us from the fear of gunshots.Posted by: AnonymousWhy do you need guns?
For protection? Get a security system. For hunting? You don't need semi-automatic weapons to kill a deer. The only other reason for a gun is to kill people, tons of gangsters, psychopaths, and serial killers have possession of guns because of he 2nd amendment, this has caused the Columbine, the Colorado movie massacre, and Sandy Hook. Because of these events Americans sure as hell dont deserve gun possession, you dont need them. GUN CONTROL PLEASE!
Posted by: AnonymousNobody should be allowed to own any object specifically modified to kill others
It should be a no brainer really. Nobody should have access to anything that is made to kill or harm others. Not even the police or the armies. World would be a better place if we frowned upon anyone that wants to take liberties and carry weapons as outcasts. Nobody should even want to equip themselves with anything that could harm another individual. That goes for governments with their nuclear weapons also.
Posted by: AnonymousWhat's the Point ?
What's the point of having a gun at home?...Is it for protection? Then get a better alarm system. There is honestly NO POINT in having a gun if you're a citizen ! I'm from Canada and here is A LOT safer than the U.S will ever be with citizens owning guns casually. What if you are drunk and have a fight with your wife huh? The gun is right beside you, would you take it and just shoot her or walk away? What if your kid finds the gun in your drawer and decides to play with it but what happens is them shooting themselves! HAVING A GUN AT HOME IS JUST ASKING FOR SOMETHING BAD TO HAPPEN TO ANYBODY AT HOME OR NEIGHBOURHOOD OR EVEN THE PEOPLE YOU JUST MET....LIKE I SAID THERE IS NO POINT
Posted by: Torrr3sStricter gun laws will result in less shootings
Owning a gun is one thing but why should private citizens be allowed to register an abundant amount of guns and rifles and all sorts of firearms, especially if they reside in a town that does not even have a high crime rate? I just dont agree. I can guarantee that stricter gun laws will result in less shootings that is obvious!
Posted by: AnonymousIt's over-- weapons kill
It's over-- gun enthusiasts may like their guns and have the illusion it makes them safe, but we just had one more tragic proof that military weapons in the hands of private citizens can cause mass murder. Are we going to keep allowing that? We have the responsibility to keep our children safe.
Posted by: drellskyGuns are not needed
I'm tired of the argument-"If citizens carried guns they could shoot the gunman down before he hurt anybody"-that is RIDICULOUS. If guns were illegal, then the gunman wouldn't have a gun in the first place so innocent people wouldn't need to defend themselves. Guns in the hands of a civilian have done more harm than good in our country
Posted by: MalloryIt's not that I'm against Americans owning firearms, I just think the system currently in place is far too lax.
The right to bear arms is the second amendment in the American constitution, and so they should be able to do this, I don't have a problem with that, but the range of guns available and the ease with which one can obtain said firearms is ridiculous. My view is that it should be harder to obtain a gun, and that the owner, along with anyone who lives in the same house as them should have to submit to yearly psychological tests, and that the should be required to lock their guns up better, in the case of most shootings, including the recent and tragic Sandy Hook shooting the guns used do not belong to the shooter, but a relative or friend. Or, the gun was purchased illegally. This is also a large problem that needs addressing in America, the ease with which one can illegally purchase a firearm. Although a "Saturday Night Special" is not as powerful or effective as a legally purchased AR15, a single bullet can still kill a person. It is my belief that before addressing the issue of legally purchasing a gun in America it is necessary for the American government to first address the issues of illegally obtaining a gun and keeping legally purchased guns in their owners hands, along with ways of making sure that said owners are not going to lose the plot and go on a killing spree.
Posted by: AnonymousWhy ban nuclear weapons if guns are legal?
If we believe that guns should be legal for most people, then why don't we believe that we should allow most citizens and most nations to have nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. Guns are used in the same manner as nuclear weapons.
Why are nuclear weapons outlawed if we have the right to bear arms? It is pretty obvious. Owning weapons of mass destruction is not what the second amendment means. There is an obvious context to the amendment which is not applicable here. Both guns and nuclear weapons are arms which are used as weapons to kill. We might as well live in underground caves with body armor and drive to work in a tank in a world where deadly weapons are not outlawed.
Opinions are unanimous: Limiting the availability and spread of nuclear warfare and keeping them in control is the best way to prevent nuclear catastrophe. In the same manner, limiting the availability and spread of guns and keeping them in control is the best way to prevent unnecessary loss of life.
How often was a life saved because of the widespread availability of guns by citizens compared to how often lives are threatened, injured, and killed.
Killing one innocent human life unnecessarily is like killing the world. The fact that we even have to debate this shows that we lack an essential value for innocent human life.Posted by: AnonymousLiving with the fear.
Sure, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" but should we give people the opportunity to do such things? Why should we all live with the fear that the people we love have armed weapons? Who knows when someone might snap and use the weapons against innocent people? I think that everybody, and especially children and the elderly should not live in this fear. Why not just eliminate the use of guns altogether, or make it much more complicated to get a license for guns and make it impossible to get guns illegally? Either control the people, or control the government.
Posted by: AnonymousWho are the good guys?
We are not able to make accurate predictions about what people will do in the future, how they will respond under stress, or how clearly they will think and act in a time of crisis. Consider what could have happened at the incident at the Oregon Mall, or the Tuscon Safeway parking lot, or the tragic incident at Virginia tech if a number of people in the immediate area had been armed with "assault style" weapons. They hear shooting and grab their weapons and prepare to defend themselves and rescue those under assault. They look around and see others with weapons. How do they know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are? Is everyone going to hold their fire until it is clear who is causing the problem, and hold their fire until their shot will take out the bad guy and only the bad guy? When the police arrive and see many people with weapons drawn how will they know who the good guys are? Does more people with more deadly weapons really make us safer? Just thinking about it does not make me feel safer. I can easily imagine the above situations being worse than they were.
Posted by: AnonymousFree access to murder weapons is good? No.
It is extremely stupid to believe that giving people free and legal access to weaponry is going to minimize its use. Allowing people to own guns is encouraging them to use them. I have said this very plainly, and it cannot easily be said more so. To permit guns is to permit their use. You cannot allow people to own guns when using them results in something that can never be allowed!
Posted by: AnonymousIt's time for progress you paranoid suburban cowboys
Some people talk about the constitution like it's scripture when it's just an organizing document that should be amended or even rewritten to change with the times. In the US there are people who want their "man card" by having guns and hunting, or are paranoid that evil people -- thieves, the police, the government, or the UN will take away our guns and our freedom.
Posted by: AnonymousLive by the sword, die by the sword.
I live in the Uk, we don't even have many armed police (only on special raids etc. or in special units) We have had very few mass shooting incidents, research shows this happens every 5 days somewhere in the US. This standpoint is just common sense, to the rest of the world the yes standpoint sounds so nuts it MUST be deliberate!
Posted by: AnonymousWe need to evolve as a society
This is the 21st Century!
Why do we need a weapon in the hands of the average person that can kill many people at one time? I would love to find out what the static's are to guns that have been used by your average good citizen protecting themselves to someone who was able to purchase a gun, stole a gun or was otherwise able to obtain a firearm for the purpose of destroying a life because they were mad or jealous or mentally unstable.
Will removing guns stop the killing or violence? No, unfortunately not.
But it may prevent someone from blasting away several innocent people from a distance and walking away or killing themselves.
We are a new millennium there has to be a more clever way to deal with self protection than packing away a weapon who's sole purpose was created to kill, kill, KILL!
Until we change our way of thinking, I don't see how the tragedies of the past won't repeat themselves.
God help us all!Posted by: AnonymousI am ashamed to be an American
The United States is supposed to be the best country in the world but our laws show the rest of the world we have no common sense. A "gun enthusiast" when you have a young person living in your home with issues? Sorry, no brains! She should have been playing golf, not messing with assault rifles. No private citizen needs a gun of any kind, period. The children who were brutally murdered IN SCHOOL in Connecticut could be ANYONE'S child! We are all responsible for this insanity if we don't change the laws.
Posted by: AnonymousNO
"Criminals don't pay attention to laws." Good argument. Criminals are always going to murder, steal, rape, etc. no matter what laws are in place. Should we get rid of those laws too? Just because criminals do it does not mean that there should be no laws in place to stop them. People are going to manage to get firearms somehow, but we do not need to make it easier for them by selling them in Walmart.
Posted by: Anonymousget with the times
I am more no then yes, but just listen. When the 2nd ammendment was made, people really had no way to defend themselves other than guns. Back then law enforcment was near nothing. And even that is too much of compliment. People go and own guns and what for. To possess murder weapons, I guess I just don't understand. Why do we allow people to use their guns as toys for target shooting and trap shooting. And yes I mean as TOYS, people go and use guns as toys and they all of a sudden they think every pro gun law is justified...
Posted by: AnonymousI think even legally owned guns are often misused and can cause a danger to innocent civilians.
I think if gun ownership was illegal, it would be easier to discover illegally owned guns and confiscate them. Guns don't save lives, guns destroy lives. The possession of guns should be limited to police and military personnel who have been trained to properly use them. Civilians can protect themselves by other, less dangerous means, including pepper sprays, alarms and security systems.
Posted by: R0thFerdywe shouldn't have right to use own guns.
Gun is used to kill people.A few months ago some school kids are attacked by the criminals.A lot of kids are died by gun.So,bad people shouldn't have right to use own guns.Gun causes more problems that it solves.People who use own guns for protection often kill their own friends and family by accident,and children often have accidents when playing with loaded firearms they find at home.In December 15,1791 a law was started that an individual had the right to process firearms.On December 27th 2012 a shooting occurred at "Sandy Hook" elementary school,causing the death to 20 children between the ages of 5 and 10 years old.The U.S. Averages 9,146 death just caused by firearms a year.The U.K. Only averages 18.If the U.S. Started a law that made weapon illegal,than less people would die.Research shows that every 5 days,somewhere in 78% of murders from weapon.If guns are completely taking away,gun crime would discrease.We dont need to use guns because we are surrounded by police.When the second amendment was put in the constitution,there was no police forces.We don't need the second amendment rights anymore.The constitution explicity state the purpose of owning a gun in the U.S. Is so that citizen can from militria.So,we don't need use guns anymore.
We shouldn't have right to use guns because most of the family have little kids.Accidently if the kids found the guns they will loaded the firearms.They want to play with it.Accidently they can kill someone by firearms.It's so harmful to have a gun with you.In 20th July 2012,12 people died and 59 people wounded at a midnight cinema showing the new badman film.Because a man came from exit,and started shooting people for no reason.Only 25% people are agree with my opinion.They think that it is important to have a gun with you.Most people use their guns for self-defense.If guns are illegal,then no one can kill you from a gun.So,there's a 90% chance you won't be attacked.People obuse the use of guns.There is many different ways of protecting yourself without using a gunPosted by: POLLOCKNo, They Shouldn't.
Not all members of the public are good, and the bad ones will try to get guns. If they do not have guns, then the bad will have to get guns in other ways which the authorities can stop. No guns in the USA. Brady Campaigner -- here we hate guns.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, people shouldn't have guns because it is too dangerous.
I don't think people should carry around guns. If they do, then it is bad. When some people get mad, they might carry their guns out and someone might get killed. Some people can get scared by the sound of the guns. The sound of the guns is loud too.
Posted by: AnonymousNo, guns should not be legal!
If guns had been illegal for normal citizens, the shooting in Newtown would not have happened and those children would still be at home for Christmas instead of the graveyard. If guns had been more closely watched,those poor families would not be weeping, they would be laughing with their children.
Posted by: AnonymousKilling is too easy
So many people die because it is just so easy to click a trigger and kill someone. So many normal people have simply lost their tempers and shot people before they even knew what happened. You dont have to be a criminal to kill someone. If someone is angry enough and they had a means (maybe for example a handheld device with which you only need to point, click and kill someone in an instant) they would do it. I know the saying guns dont kill people people kill people. It's not true at all, the bullet from the gun is what kills. If people did not have guns they would probably not kill because it would be a lot more difficult to kill any other way. If you do not believe me check out this statistic. In 2011 - the latest year for which detailed statistics are available - there were 12,664 murders in the US. Of those, 8,583 were caused by firearms. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state)
Posted by: Anonymous