Is there anyone out ther that can actually come up with a convincing argument for gun control?
The Second Amendment grants us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. I don't want to discuss the comma, Nat'l guard, or any other argument that has been discarded as unworkable by gun control groups. I want to know if anyone can tell me how losing one of our rights as U.S. citizens could actually make us safer.
Answers:
Yes. It makes the masses easier to control, something the Democrats have been trying to do for years.
Edit:
hobbitgonewild - Automatic weapons (SMGs) are not available at your neighborhood gun store. You are critically uninfomed.
Well it says we have the right to keep and bear arms, not buy arms. What I don't understand is why we still sell smgs, AKs, and assault rifles in gun stores! Who the hell hunts deer with a damn AK? I say they tighten regulations, do more background checks (as VA Tech proves we need), and stop selling damn army arsenals to the public. Besides the 2nd doesnt specify what arms, we could pretend its our bodily limbs ha!
Let's get one thing in the open first - I own a gun, in fact more than one - so you will know my opinions aren't from some left wing liberal.
Statistics show that ALL countries with stiffer gun controls have lower violent crime rates. It's that simple.
Gun control doesn't necessarily mean taking our guns, it means making sure less idiots/criminals get them too.
Make licensing, testing and holding periods longer and tougher. Make weapons related crimes have more severe penalties. There are lots of ways of controlling weapons without taking them away from normal citizens.
YES!!
I'm 100% FOR gun control
Unless you can control your gun, you might miss and hit some innocent bystander instead of the bad guy invading your home.
By the way, Rob J up there has it reversed. Countries with stiffer gun control laws have HIGHER incident of violent crimes. It's FACT, the stats are in and it is conclusive.
Why do you think D.C. has been the murder capital OF THE WORLD since guns were banned? Why was Allentown PA crime free? It's because they had a city ordinance that required the head of every household to carry a gun!
Florida has right to carry laws and crime is very low except against people driving rental cars who've gotten off of gun free airplanes. Criminals always target 'gun free zones' where they know nobody will shoot back!
.
Face the facts,
If guns were OUTLAWED, only OUTLAWS would own guns!
No law in the world would have stopped the tragedy in VA.
I will tell you my idea of gun control. USE TWO HANDS!
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
I think the issue is more complex than you attempt to make it. Yet, I do agree with your belief that people should be able to own firearms. Although, it is difficult argue that there should be no control of guns whatsoever. We can't very well have people roaming the streets with weapons in hand. The real issue is how far the restrictions should go. It's complicated and I don't really feel like going in to all this.
There are a number of viable arguments on both sides of the issue, but personally I just think a person should be able to possess a firearm for the purpose of self defense. The law does allow for deadly force by one in immediate peril of death or serious bodily injury, and stripping citizens of guns would certainly remove teeth from such a right to self preservation.
P.S. Coragryph, your Constitutional law comments are inaccurate/incomplete
Yes, Coragryph, I agree with the asker, we are obviously not having a strict legal argument here, which is actually good for you because you are clearly not a "top contributor" of case law knowledge. The idea here, I think, is that people should be able to discuss the practical issues of gun control without having a legal background. Of course, if you should choose to better inform yourself, I'm sure there's something along the lines of an "idiots guide to constitutional law" available out there.
For anyone who believes that the 2nd Ammendment is a collective right, rather than an individual one, try this on for size: " A well regulated Media, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to produce and distribute news copy shall not be infringed." Or for you religious folks :" A well regulated Clergy, being neccessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read bibles/korans shall not be infringed"
By insisting that the 2nd is a COLLECIVE right, rather than an individual one, under the above rewrites, the only people who would be allowed to own bibles would be priests or imams, and unless you had a press card, you couldn't disseminate news. Pretty ridiculous!
Another fallacy, is that the bill of rights GRANTS us these rights. It does not. What it does do is ACKNOWLEDGE that these are rights that transcend mankind, god given rights, no government should be allowed to take away.
Anytime we sit idly by and allow ANY of our rights to be stripped away, or even infringed upon, we make ourselves weaker. We make ourselves weaker individually and weaker as a nation. By not fighting to keep our rights we signal to those that would take them " the coast is clear, do what you will " and most assuredly, they will.
Well one way to do it is to not ban or restrict guns but put restrictions on the ammo. A gun is useless without ammo. Also there could be certain restrictions on hand guns, it's harder for a person to hide something as big as a shot gun that doesn't shoot as many rounds as a hand gun can.
Or we can ban guns altogether and resort to using swords and bows and arrows. If the guy that did the Virginia shootings would have had either a bow and arrows or a sword he would have been taken down a lot easier.
Yes, think of all the dead children from drive-by shootings. Think of all the people killed where the parents allowed their kids access to guns. Think of all the accidents where people are hurt or killed. This is just for starters. Smart people don't want the society to have guns. The US has too many guns and more deaths from guns because of it. The US has already tamed the frontier, there is no need for guns anymore. Those that claim they need them for protection are cowards who will shoot someone, anyone, even a family member in angry. Marvin Gay was killed by his father who shot him while he had a disagreement over insurance. There is a mountain of data to support we need to get rid of all guns in the US. It is only the boneheads that think we still need them.
Honey, we are losing our rights... left and right. The freedom we have known is slowly being sucked away by laws, public opinion and people in power who want to stay in power.
Losing one of our rights does NOT make up safer. Neither does it help protect us. Losing any right under the US constitution is worthy of revolt, public demand, and voter ousted public officials.
Our constitution is under attack every day in the Congressional house. But I doubt we will ever wake up long enough to see it happen, and only the nightmare of losing our freedoms will awaken us... if then.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: