• Let's be rational

    Gun control does not endanger Second Amendment rights as the NRA claims. Gun ownership is not an absolute right; gun control refers to which types of guns can be owned by civilians and which types of people are prohibited from owning a firearm. There should be more restrictions and regulation both on the governmental level, and on an individual level. If you own a firearm or several firearms and you have children, keep the weapon and ammunition out of their reach.

  • What is the Point?

    I personally don't find the need for guns for civilians. And quite frankly "protecting yourself and your family" is so irrational. Chances are, if you have a gun in order to protect your family, you're going to want to keep it out of the kids reach. So when a person comes into your house and endangers your children, what are you going to say? "Hold on sir, I need to go unlock my gun safe so I can shoot you." That is just stupid. And then there is the argument about how it doesn't matter what kind of restrictions we put on guns, criminals will still find ways to get them. So does that mean we give up? "Oh well the gangs are going to get their hands on these guns anyway, so why bother trying to stop them." That has got to be the most unAmerican Approach to this whole issue I've ever seen. Be realistic people. We don't need guns in this world.

  • Yes, but keep it constitutional...

    I believe that the ordinary citizens are guaranteed the right to protect his or herself in most circumstances under the U.S. Consitution. However, a history of mental health issues and a criminal background is the one condition that I believe permits the repudiation of gun rights. For the sake of human happiness, we must do more to prevent guns from getting into the hands of those who are mentally unstable or have the intent of harm the innocent.

  • Let's make something clear.

    The founding fathers knew what they were doing. The right to bear arms is there for a reason. Any regulation against a constitutional amendment should be faced extreme opposition. It is designed to protect us from both the government and ourselves. I would love to own an AR, but because regulation may dictate. That may not be possible in the future. We the people should be able to practice our rights and be able to bear arms . I want to be able to go out into the wild and hunt with a rifle. I want to be able to hold a handgun and shoot at paper targets across a controlled firing range. I want to be able to protect myself from government oppression whilst I have the same amount of weaponry as they do. This is why, Gun Control is not a good idea.

  • Never enuff dakka.

    Gun control removes personal armaments from the law-abiding citizens and the occasional criminal. If the criminals are already ignoring the laws for something, what makes you think that they'll abide by the laws controlling guns? Also, the more people who are armed, the more people who can protect themselves, their families, their property, and the odd bystander.

  • We have more than enough gun control on the books now!!

    Don't confuse liability (such as being careless and allowing a 5 year old access to your loaded gun) with gun control. If someone is injured due to careless disregard or stupidity, there are laws on the books already to deal with that.

    There are also already more than enough gun control laws on the books - but government doesn't enforce them adequately - some might say so they can keep pushing for even more intrusive restrictions.

    What's needed more than more useless gun control laws (which the very politicians who propose them grudgingly admit would not have stopped the very incidents they claim they're proposing the new laws for) is mental health reforms to insure that anyone on psychoactive drugs, under serious mental care, etc. are unable to acquire guns.

    The primary cause of gun related deaths in the country are gangs and crime related shootings (mostly black on black or Hispanic on Hispanic/black, but robbery, rape, murder, etc. certainly spills over into most of the urban landscape)

    But politicians don't want to take the necessary actions to stem the tide of gang and criminal violence for fear of being labeled racist. Until they aggressively go after gangs and the latent criminal element walking the streets, you can forget EVER trying to disarm law abiding citizens in places like Chicago

    Had I been unarmed a number of months ago walking in Chicago, I'd be dead now - and I was in a nice neighborhood near Loyola University.

    Politicians pushing more gun control don't want to attack the real problems, they just want to push more ways to disarm citizens (while maintaining their own armed body guards) for political gain - which means that fundamentally they have total disregard for the citizenry's personal safety - the FBI's stats demonstrate that more guns in the hands of law abiding citizens results in less violent crime

    Wear a sign that says "blithely unarmed" if you want, just don't expect the rest of us to follow you over the cliff.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
MakeSensePeopleDont says2015-09-15T16:15:54.567
I would love to debate this topic if anyone on the "Pro" gun control side is game. I would be against gun control, you would be for gun control. Feel free to setup a debate and send the debate request my way, we can get it in :)