Amazon.com Widgets
  • How many more people need to die until America realizes this is not right

    The Second Amendment does ensure the right to bear arms but I am sure it was implied somewhere that we also have the right not to be shot for no good reason. It is commonly accepted that we need some sort of gun restrictions here, even modest reforms such as background checks would suffice. Also, we ought to instate bans on large military style weapons as well as their high capacity clips because the only reason one would desire a gun with such power is to kill people. What sense is their in continuing on this path and letting more people get murdered because we are unwilling to act?

  • The person is killing people with the gun

    The person wants to kill someone so he uses a gun. The gun is letting the person shoot the person. The gun should be limited to certain things besides murdering. Like hunting or millitary or goverment use rather than murdering. This proves that there should be a limitation to gun control.

  • Yes yes yes

    In the wrong hands can be bad. Why have guns in the first place.In the wrong hands can be bad. Why have guns in the first place.In the wrong hands can be bad. Why have guns in the first place.In the wrong hands can be bad. Why have guns in the first place.In the wrong hands can be bad. Why have guns in the first place.

  • Yes yes yes

    In the wrong hands can be bad. Why have guns in the first place.In the wrong hands can be bad. Why have guns in the first place.In the wrong hands can be bad. Why have guns in the first place.In the wrong hands can be bad. Why have guns in the first place.In the wrong hands can be bad. Why have guns in the first place.

  • Yes. Yes. Yes

    Period. THE END. THE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE ENDTHE END THE END

  • Innocent people are being murdered. It is easier to commit Mass murder by a sole murder with assault rifles. We must limit mass murder.

    Assault weapons make it easier to kill multiple people in a faster fashion than hunting rifles vs. Knives vs. Fists. Ease of use increases likelihood of use. Restriction does not equal ban. Hunting fine. Upstanding citizen using for recreation is okay. Some restrictions are justifiable thought. Wouldn't give a gun to five year old and if you did legal ramifications should follow, follow line of reasoning. If I give a gun to my son who I know is a racist and states he wants to start a race war by killing people, then police/lawyer should come for me. The use or sale of an assault weapon in a grossly negligent way should have legal repercussions to user and seller

  • Gun ownership is not absolute

    There should be limitations on gun rights in terms of types of guns that should not be sold to citizens and which people should be prohibited from owning a firearm. To start off, ordinary civilians should not be allowed to own an assault rifle, it's not suited for civilian use. Second, I think people with a criminal history and history of mental illness should be prohibited from owning a gun; guns and mental illness is not a good combination.

  • Dangerous weapons require regulations

    I fully support restrictions on gun ownership. Background checks, waiting periods,and other restrictions make society safer. No right is unlimited. I have the right to speak but not to threaten violence. I have the right to drive a car, but I get fined if I don't wear a seat belts and if I park in a handicap space,etc.

  • Gun Right Limitations Are Justly Constitutional

    The Oxford Dictionaries defines a militia as "A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency." Also consider that the second amendment to the United States Constitution reads "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." Then considering these two points, it is easy to conclude that if the constitutionally protected freedom of a person's state is being directly threatened, and it is necessary to keep and bear arms to maintain the person's state, then that person has a constitutional right to bear and keep arms. Also easily concluded, on the contrary, is that if a person's constitutionally protected freedom of their state is not under direct threat of violation, then their right to keep and bear arms under the constitution is fundamentally invalidated. Those who attempt to wield the second amendment as justification for keeping and bearing arms in trivial context should probably read the text especially while considering the historical frame of reference.

  • Yes There should be gun limitations

    Guns should remain legal to the public but it should be much more difficult to attain them and as MitchV said hand guns should be banned. If we had more limitations we could minimize the number of bad incidents that happen because of guns and they could be still be used for hunting and protection within the home.

  • No gun rights should be tolerated (in reason)

    Gun restrictions are against the constitution, but that does not mean it is bad to restrict some guns. However, the slippery slope America is on to get rid of guns is worrying. The fight against AR-15's for example, is totally and hopelessly unconstitutional and wrong. There should be no fight. AR-15's are not like/anywhere close to military grade weaponry. The argument many make is because the rifle looks like a military style rifle, and that if we need protection, just carry a shotgun. But there are so many things wrong with that. Shotguns aren't the 'protect your home' weapon. They are a 'spread shot and hit everything within 5 feet of where you are aiming' weapon. If you want to protect your home, and NOT destroy it or your family, AR-15's are probably what you want to use.

  • Guns vs people

    Is the gun walking around and killing people? No. The person holding the gun is. Therefore its simple. The people do the killing and if those people are crazy enough to plan a mass shooting no gun law is going to stop them. Even if there were limitations on gun rights, those people would probably STILL find guns and then we would be left with no guns to defend ourselves.

  • 2ND AMENDMENT No limitations

    People who think that there should be limitations on gun rights want to believe that the 2nd amendment does not include the military style guns, however the second amendment says that "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" . Some argue that only prevent congress from restricting the states right to defense which is collective rights theory . This is true however it clearly says that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringe" if the founding fathers want to restrict Americans right, they could just not write it or put the state has the right to regulate people's firearms.

  • There shouldn't be limitations for mentally sane law abiding gun owners

    Law abiding citizens who are mentally fit should not have to be restricted from certain guns.

    The silly "assault weapons" ban garbage is absolutely stupid. A ban on "scary looking rifles" will do nothing. Less than 2% of gun homicides involve assault weapons, the 2 worst mass shootings in the world were not committed by "assault weapons" and in the past TEN YEARS, less than 70 people have been killed by "assault weapons" in mass shootings. Limit the rights of criminals and the mentally insane, not the good gun owners.

  • There are already limitations on Gun Rights.

    There are already background checks, waiting periods, etc. "Assault Rifle" was coined to confuse someone who knows little to nothing about weapons. Most people for. Gun control have hardly any basic knowledge when it comes to weapons. 0.672 of all gun crimes are committed with rifles. So the very fact we should ban "assault rifles" makes no sense and would not reduce crime. Also an assault rifle is a fully automatic weapon, which are nearly impossible to own.

  • Criminals Ignore Laws

    There should be no limits on gun rights because laws against gun ownership and use are immoral. Crimes committed with guns should be prosecuted and charged to the fullest extent of moral laws against use of violence and force (or the threat thereof). But simply possessing a gun harms no one. Plus, criminals would and do ignore gun laws, so they are largely ineffective.

  • Firearm laws target the wrong things

    In the state of California firearm laws target high capacity magazines , frightening in appearance assault weapons , and AR 15's. More people are annually killed with handguns in California than assault rifles but politicians focus on AR 15's more than Colt 1911's that are used in more homicides and murders. Then high capacity magazines are completely forbidden in the state of California but, people still bring them into California from Nevada constantly up to this date. Or even just because a firearm has a number of mean looking attachments automatically needs to be restricted. So personally I believe that firearms should not have any restrictions.

  • Wouldn't help at all

    It is illogical for you to tell me that I can't protect myself. If you do remove guns. Then all you are doing is stopping me from protecting myself. Criminals would still get guns. Also, a criminal could easily kill some one with a knife. Also, it would be nearly impossible to enforce.

  • Criminals vs innocent protectors

    This argument is probably the best one in the arsenal of the gun enthusiast, but it too, is not really a good reason to obstruct gun control. If laws are irrelevant because criminals will simply ignore them, then there is no purpose for any laws and no potential for a safe society.

  • Criminals vs innocent protectors

    This argument is probably the best one in the arsenal of the gun enthusiast, but it too, is not really a good reason to obstruct gun control. If laws are irrelevant because criminals will simply ignore them, then there is no purpose for any laws and no potential for a safe society.


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