Should there be a ban on civilian-owned firearms?

  • Fuck you thunder

    Dsaffasfdasfaf fdsafsd af af af asf a a af asf asf af asfd asf asf as sadf as asdf asd sa sadf assdf as asdfd d d d d a s as a as s s s s s s s s s s s s s fuck you thunder 응니애미

  • Fuck you thunder

    Dsaffasfdasfaf fdsafsd af af af asf a a af asf asf af asfd asf asf as sadf as asdf asd sa sadf assdf as asdfd d d d d a s as a as s s s s s s s s s s s s s fuck you thunder 응니애미

  • Guns are very dangerous and are deadly weapons

    Guns should be banned from civilians, and law enforcement officials in uniform only (e.G., Police officers, or sheriff deputies) should only gain access to them, not civilians because guns are too dangerous to use, and are deadly, because if you get shot in the head, or the hear t with a gun, you will die instantly. Guns should become illegal for civilians, and not illegal for law enforcement officials only in uniform.
    If you shot somebody with a gun (and kill someone), you could be in prison for a very, very long time (or for the rest of your life, and never be on the streets again). This is why guns should be banned from civilians.

  • Number of murders and Deaths to Civilians

    How Many people are killed each year in the US? I don't know, but its sure a lot. When my sister turns on the news each morning there is at least one story somewhere in the world where people are murdered. Examples; Colorado shooting during batman. Although guns may be used for self defense, hunting etc. It is still a staggering amount of lives lost each year in the US.
    -Christian 8th grade

  • I feel that there should be a ban on civilians owning firearms, because guns are too dangerous.

    I believe civilians should not own guns, because they are very dangerous. There have been several reports where children have found these guns and accidentally killed themselves or some other child. After living in the Los Angeles area, I have seen, first hand, the harm that guns can do. Drive-by shootings, gang-related deaths...the list just goes on and on. In conclusion, the banning on civilian-owned firearms is necessary in our society.

    Posted by: MeaslyHollis45
  • Because I'm not willing to be a victim

    It is on my natural right to be able to defend myself, it is fair to be able to defend myself.
    Criminals are criminals because they break the law, if they can break any law, then a ban would be able to be broken too, so it is pointless.
    People will always find a way to hurt each other, if it isn't a gun, it's a knife, if it isn't a knife, it will be a stick, no stick? Stones. Pretty simple, gun ban will do nothing but rising crime

  • No one should be defencless

    Every one should be able to defend themselves. If the country is at war than civilians can be able to defend their country and help the army.
    The crime rate would also decrease because if everyone has a gun everyone would be afraid of each other and no one would try to harm another person .

  • America Is About Freedom

    I do not believe there should be a ban on civilian owned firearms. Some people would point to our constitution and rights and say its guaranteed, however, I simply feel like this is America and as Americans we should have the right to have our own weapons. I do not believe the government should have the right to limit that freedom.

  • Look at Israel

    Israel: One of our closest allies in the world and without question our closest in the Middle East. And I'd bet you didn't know this: Israel requires every civilian to own a firearm. And you know what else? Israel has the lowest violent crime rate in the world. That's because everyone knows everyone else has a firearm, and in all honesty, who would set out to kill someone if you knew that someone was in possession of a firearm? And now lets look at England. They have some of the tightest firearm laws in the world, and subsequently, they have one of the highest violent crime rates in the world. That is because criminals who get their guns illegally know that not many law abiding citizens own a gun. If you outlaw civilian-owned firearms then we're looking at a sharp rise in violent crime, including murder, armed robbery, and rape.

  • The right to self defence is a natural right.

    Second off the founding fathers knew that it would take an armed citizenry to even have a chance of keeping a tyrannical government in check. So with out an armed citizenry, we are but slaves to the government that is supposed to be serving, we, the people. Want to know what else is dangerous? Stupid people passing out bad information where others might find it. Besides, it's not weapons that are really dangerous, it's though who would use them for evil that are dangerous.

  • In order to form a well regulated militia

    I believe that current regulations on weapons ownership are unconstitutional based on the quoted excerpt from the second amendment. A militia is recognized as a paramilitary organization formed of civilians, who fight against either a tyrannical government or against an enemy invader. Now for us Americans the second concern is a potentiality but you never hear arguments concerning this as the military is currently the most powerful military in the world, but this will not always be so my fellows, take for example the Roman army, a professional army that knew no equal for hundreds of years, but eventually they were defeated and i'm sure most know what happened to Rome. Eventually the same fate will befall the united states, as it has all nations and empires across time. But regardless the threat of tyrannical government is a much more potent one, and how might we average citizens go about fighting m1 abrams, f/a-18 hornet fighter bombers, b-52 stratofortress strategic bombers, or ah-1z viper attack helicopters, hmm? In short, you have about a snowball's chance in hell of any measure of success without breaking the laws currently implemented within the United States. We need to be able to at bare minimum, be able to purchase fully automatic firearms, which is currently illegal for newly manufactured weapons under the Hughes amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. but to truly be able to function well as a militia, we need access to much more powerful weapons plain and simple.

  • Absolutely not!

    #1: Our second Amendment: I see the purpose of the second amendment as a sort of insurance policy. It may cost a bit (the lives of those who do not respect guns) but the overall benefits outweigh the costs. If the original Colonists were not able to have guns, they would have not been able to break away from the Europeans. Our founding fathers saw that we needed guns to ensure our freedoms and make sure the government will not become to powerful, and if they do, we can stop them.

    #2 Crime rates would not change or they would go up: By banning guns, you are only taking firearms away from honest people. Criminals are criminals. They don't follow the law already, what makes you think they are going to just hand over your guns.

    #3 Cars kill more people each year than guns. Why don't you want to ban them? Just because guns serve no purpose to you doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose to other people. If I had to choose between a car and a gun, I would choose the latter because it serves a much greater purpose to me than the car.

  • Civilian firearms should be regulated, not banned.

    The 2nd amendment was penned by our forefathers for one reason and one reason alone, for the defense of the constitution and the people by their descendants from a tyrannical government. In the days the constitution was written farmers had the same military technologies as governments and merchants ships could hold defense against a navy. As time moves on and as government militaries grow strong, civilian weaponry has been been held back by countless regulations.

    If the day comes where the people of America are called on to defend the constitution from a tyrannical government, we the people can not hope to fend off M1 Abrams tank, Reaper Drones, and Nimitz class nuclear aircraft carriers with the current bans on certain weapons and can not hope to fend them off with further weapon bans. You may argue the National Guard could aid the people but ultimately, the NG belongs to Uncle Sam.

    Thus, I believe guns should not be banned and should be even more loosely controlled. Extensive background checks and criminal history records should be issued before any gun sales, whether its a hunting rifle or an M16A4. Only those in perfect standing should be allowed to own weapons which will keep crime rates lower. Illicit gun sales should be punished severely and mandatory weapon checks should be placed, but Good-standing citizens should have the opportunity to own weapons and protect the document our nation holds dear.

  • Those with an elementary History education know an armed society is a polite society.

    The Second Amendment is the amendment that protects all others. In WWII, the Japanese could not invade the mainland United States because "there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Civilian ownership keeps tyrants at bay. If a government becomes too corrupted, those with arms can easily take it back. Accidental deaths is an outrageous reason for banning guns. Children should not be babied and brainwashed into fearing guns, they should be educated in their use and earn a healthy respect for the weapons.

  • Banning civilian owned firearms will not remove criminally owned firearms.

    The only thing that banning civilian owned firearms will accomplish is propagate free violence among criminals. For criminals will simply ignore the penalties in place and use their same black market routes to obtain firearms; after all, the same people who murder, rape, and extort will hardly blink an eye at obtaining a firearm illegally.Their black market routes will be strengthened by additional revenue, much as the marijuana trade is strengthened by American policy on drugs. A ban on firearms ownership will increase the amount of guns within gangs and for criminals; they will use these firearms against citizens with the secure knowledge that opposition is ten minutes away, at worst, from the local police station. By contrast, an armed populace presents significant risk for criminal activity; after all, the gangbanger with a cheap 9mm pistol will not feel comfortable robbing a convenience store with the possibility that the store owner or a patron has a .45 ACP 1911A1 to counterattack with. States that have implemented concealed carry have enjoyed significantly reduced crime rates, to support this claim. True, there will still be accidents with minors and firearms. But this issue can be resolved with proper education: that guns are not toys. Thus, banning civilian firearm ownership will not only be ineffectual in reducing violent crime, it will actually have the opposite effect of increasing it.

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