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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The 2nd Amendment ensures the right to bear arms; however, this amendment was passed in a completely different time period. Society has evolved since then, and a benefit of the U.S. government system is that it has the power to evolve with society. Too many innocent lives have been lost because of guns. This leads to the argument that guns are needed for self defense, but a major reason they would be necessary for self defense is if the threat has a gun, which would not happen if guns are outlawed. Someone who has a gun solely for self defense might not keep it secure, so it may fall into the wrong hands. There are countless stories of this occurring. The U.S. government needs to put an end to the misery that comes from gun violence.
**Note: Soldiers should still be allowed to have guns, but only while in combat or in training.
American citizens have the right to bear arms, it's stated in the constitution. We have the right to protect ourselves and the right to feel safe. A feeling of safety is brought many times with possession of a gun, knowing that you have a way to protect yourself. Feeling in danger is also brought on when somebody who isn't mentally stable or isn't properly suited to have a gun does have possession of a gun. With that gun, they can do many things. Lives can be lost, people can be permanently hurt. People should have the right to have guns, but only certain people who are suitable to have possession. This includes most people, just restrictions on those who have harsh criminal records and/or are mentally unstable.
The 2nd amendment was passed in the 1700's, when people ACTUALLY NEEDED a gun. Now, we have home security and less need for a gun. All we do by continually permitting guns is open the door for gun violence, deaths, robbery, and the rise of other armed crimes. We have the right to own a gun; but not everyone should.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Its not the gun its the person behind it maybe don't be stupid. I don't understand why this is a problem, Maybe people shouldnt create bad scenario. Maybe people should just have enough common sense not to do dumb things with the guns. Why can't we just keep it civil around here