Amazon.com Widgets

Should there be a ban on civilian-owned firearms?

  • 2nd Amendment is out dated.

    Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned. [1] [2] In the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. V. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, wrote, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." [3] On June 9, 2016 the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that "[t]he right of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment," thus upholding a law requiring a permitting process and "good cause" for concealed carry licenses in California. [145] [146] A 2018 study found that 91% of the 1,153 court cases with claims stating a government action or law violates the Second Amendment between the 2008 DC v. Heller decision and Feb. 1, 2016 failed

  • 2nd Amendment is out dated.

    Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned. [1] [2] In the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. V. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, wrote, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." [3] On June 9, 2016 the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that "[t]he right of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment," thus upholding a law requiring a permitting process and "good cause" for concealed carry licenses in California. [145] [146] A 2018 study found that 91% of the 1,153 court cases with claims stating a government action or law violates the Second Amendment between the 2008 DC v. Heller decision and Feb. 1, 2016 failed

  • 2nd Amendment is out dated.

    Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned. [1] [2] In the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. V. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, wrote, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." [3] On June 9, 2016 the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that "[t]he right of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment," thus upholding a law requiring a permitting process and "good cause" for concealed carry licenses in California. [145] [146] A 2018 study found that 91% of the 1,153 court cases with claims stating a government action or law violates the Second Amendment between the 2008 DC v. Heller decision and Feb. 1, 2016 failed

  • 2nd Amendment is out dated.

    Gun control laws are just as old or older than the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791). Some examples of gun control throughout colonial America included criminalizing the transfer of guns to Catholics, slaves, indentured servants, and Native Americans; regulating the storage of gun powder in homes; banning loaded guns in Boston houses; and mandating participation in formal gathering of troops and door-to-door surveys about guns owned. [1] [2] In the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. V. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, wrote, "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." [3] On June 9, 2016 the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that "[t]he right of the general public to carry a concealed firearm in public is not, and never has been, protected by the Second Amendment," thus upholding a law requiring a permitting process and "good cause" for concealed carry licenses in California. [145] [146] A 2018 study found that 91% of the 1,153 court cases with claims stating a government action or law violates the Second Amendment between the 2008 DC v. Heller decision and Feb. 1, 2016 failed

  • Guns should not be owned by çivilians.

    People with guns have the capability of killing . "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the ten commandments. Suggest replacing guns with non lethal tasers. Suggest civilians be required be law to hand in their guns. Guns can be melted down and used to create wheelchairs and other medical supports to benefit the disabled and vulnerable .

  • I choose safety

    The constitution is outdated, even the founding fathers thought it would be temporary, it needs to be updated. Truth is we dont need guns anymore they have just been causing so much harm. Its a choice, safety or freedom, I would prefer safety than have to worry about being shot at by some psycho with a gun.

  • Without a brain they are harmless

    Guns are not dangerous its the person using it that makes it a dangerous tool no brain to operate it =harmless tool
    They are not barly dangerous and not yes dealy but like i said without an operator it wont do anything
    For example You dont see a gang of ak47s shooting at people just like that you need a gang of people to shoot those ak47s you can kill people with just about anything, banning an innocent piece of equipment like that would be silly.

  • There wouldn't be anymore shootings at places.

    I believe it should be illegal for civilians to own guns because this new law would dramatically reduce the quantity of shootings at places. Adam Lanza was a civilian and for owning guns, he claimed 26 lives at Sandy Hook in CT. Basically, I think that only these 2 people can own guns; policemen (law enforcement) and soldiers (military).

  • There wouldn't be anymore shootings at any places.

    I believe it should be illegal for civilians to own guns because that would dramatically reduce shootings at places. Adam Lanza was a civilian and for owning guns, he claimed 26 lives at Sandy Hook in CT. Basically, only these 2 people can own guns; policemen (law enforcement) and soldiers (military).

  • There wouldn't be any more shootings at any places

    I believe that it should be illegal for civilians to own guns. Adam Lanza was a civilian and for owning guns, look at the mass shooting he caused at Sandy Hook in CT, claiming 26 innocent lives.
    Basically, only these 2 people can own guns; policemen (law enforcement) and soldiers (military).

  • Without a brain they are harmless

    Guns are not dangerous its the person using it that makes it a dangerous tool no brain to operate it =harmless tool
    They are not barly dangerous and not yes dealy but like i said without an operator it wont do anything
    For example You dont see a gang of ak47s shooting at people just like that you need a gang of people to shoot those ak47s you can kill people with just about anything, banning an innocent piece of equipment like that would be silly.

  • Without a brain they are harmless

    Guns are not dangerous its the person using it that makes it a dangerous tool no brain to operate it =harmless tool
    They are not barly dangerous and not yes dealy but like i said without an operator it wont do anything
    For example You dont see a gang of ak47s shooting at people just like that you need a gang of people to shoot those ak47s you can kill people with just about anything, banning an innocent piece of equipment like that would be silly.

  • Without a brain they are harmless

    Guns are not dangerous its the person using it that makes it a dangerous tool no brain to operate it =harmless tool
    They are not barly dangerous and not yes dealy but like i said without an operator it wont do anything
    For example You dont see a gang of ak47s shooting at people just like that you need a gang of people to shoot those ak47s you can kill people with just about anything, banning an innocent piece of equipment like that would be silly.

  • 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.


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