Next Question
RSS
wow. Good hot button question. I normally steer clear of discussion questions, but here's goes...
I was raised to respect guns. We had rifles in the house. Sure, they were grandpa's rifles, but if you put a bullet in one and pulled the trigger, it would fire. Dad never hunted and never took me hunting. So I have never killed anything with a firearm.
The first gun I fired was at Boy Scout Camp. It was a .22 caliber rifle. I also fired an AK-47 for the first time at Scout camp. Over the years I have owned 2 handguns, both 9mm. I have attended training classes and seminars and had a concealed carry permit for a while. That said, I never carried my weapon. I was taught if you even pointed the weapon at something, be prepared to pull the trigger. OR, if you don't want to kill it, don't point your gun at it.
Do I believe we have a problem with gun control in this country? YES
Do I believe gun laws should actaully be enforced? YES
Do I beleive the 2nd amendment should be rewritten? NO
I believe gun control means hitting your target. I believe that while guns helped win the west, guns are also killing this nation. However, Hollywood has glamorized guns. Guns and violence help sell movies.
Responsibility- Its something that wen't out the door a long time ago. People should be responsible for their actions. If this nation actually enforced the gun laws currently on the books, we'd have to build more prisons. Too many people are getting a slap on the wrist and going back to doing what they were doing before.
Education- I was raised around guns. I knew what guns would do at a young age. I know people who own a small arsenal, yet they don't wave their weapons around in public. They have never used those weapons in the commision of a crime. We should educate people more about the dangers of guns. I also believe if a gun is used in a crime, it should be an automatic life sentence w no parole. Rob a liquor store with a gun-thats it, you're gone. That will stop all the problems with guns immediately.
I've ranted enough on this, but let me leave you with a quote from Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, leader of the Japanese Army in WWII.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Helpful Answer?
(7)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
It may be open to interpretation, though. The amendment clearly says "a well regulated militia." How is every tom, dick, and harry having a gun a well regulated militia protecting the security of the state, aka the country? This was written during a time when everyone was potentially a member of the military, and might need to be called on immediately.
In that light, I see nothing wrong with having regulations on gun ownership and bearing of arms. People getting guns need to be law abiding citizens, and a thorough background check should always be required. They should need a license to carry the weapon, and it should specify if they can have it concealed or not.
In this case, I think "the people" needs to be interpreted as "law abiding citizens/legal immigrants."
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
I think if you want to have a gun you should be reporting to militia training where they can teach gun safety.
I'm not against guns, i'm against idiots with guns.
Helpful Answer?
(8)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Here we have a classic argument of individual freedom versus protecting the citizens of this great country. The reality of the situation is that no matter how many rules and laws we put into place controlling people's activities, there will always be accidents. There will always be deaths and injuries. It's human nature to take things to the extreme, yet to constantly make more and more rules and laws governing the citizens of this nation would mean more and more freedoms gone. Unfortunately, guns will always be around now and there isn't much we can do about it. They are now, sadly, an integral part of our every day lives from soldiers protecting America, to individuals hunting wild game, to gangs fighting on the street. If we made guns illegal, the only people getting the guns would be criminals, which would make good decent people easy marks.
Unfortunately, we are not living back in pioneer days anymore when people carried their rifles everywhere. Back then, gun safety was taught by the family at an early age. Getting your first rifle as a child was a part of growing up, an integral part of your education on being an adult. These days, people aren't used to guns and have no clue how to use one safely. Most people don't know you should always treat a gun as if it were loaded, even if you are sure it isn't, so accidents tend to happen more often. If nothing else, I think owning a gun should come with some major class time and hands-on training to help the average modern person understand gun safety a little better.
Permalink | Report
Personally, I enjoy shooting. My grandfather taught me to shoot when I was ten. I have hunted deer, rabbits and birds. Changing demographics require a flexible constitution. Otherwise, we will become a nation of people who retreat every night to our fortresses behind bars.
Permalink | Report
"To bear arms" means to serve in the army. That's what it meant then and that's what it means now. The talk of militia was because the militia was thought to be better than a standing army by the Founding Fathers but that is no longer the case. Courts have said the militia became the National Guard which amounts to the same as the Army for this purpose. Tanks, artillery, machine guns, rocket grenades: that's the sort of weapons that the National Guard and Army use now. No one is trying to interpret the amendment to allow private possession of these. But you learn to use them in the Army.
People have forgotten why it was important to guarantee everyone the right to serve in the army. At that time it was still commonplace for minorities to be denied the right to serve in the army, and that was part of the way they were discriminated against and oppressed. Jews in particular had to struggle for the right to serve in the militia in colonial times. Catholics were prohibited in some countries, and of course Blacks were frequently kept from serving. Religious and racial minorities are still discriminated against in this way in numerous countries around the world. The 2nd amendment was designed, along with the others of the Bill of Rights, to prevent discrimination against minorities.
The true modern application of the USA's 2nd amendment is that Gays and Lesbians must be allowed to serve equally in the military. Keeping them out makes them second class citizens, just as other minorities were in the past. Equality in this respect is required by the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms.
Permalink | Report
However, I do not think it is the right of every individual citizen to own and carry an AK, not for any reason under the sun.
The people who want us to all be able to own assault weapons and automatic killing machines are the people who are making money by it. The people who are dying by it, not so much.....
Permalink | Report
Even with gun control, which I am for to a certain extent, you can't stop criminals from getting guns. If they can't buy them they will steal them to commit the crimes.
This is from the UMKC law website:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question: Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns; Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license; and Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting. The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand. At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights. The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership.
Source(s):
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm
Permalink | Report
So for me I do believe in the 2nd Amendment, but I think there should be much more control over having guns and ammunition.
Source(s):
personal opinion
Permalink | Report
2. I believe that individual communities (i.e. your town, city, state, etc) should be able to define their own regulations. For example, a dozen people carrying hand guns in a dense New York City Subway doesn't sound like a train I would like to ride on!
3. Clearly we need to put restrictions on the number and type of guns people buy, who sells these guns, and overall we need a central way to track this information. No sport of hobby gun owner would object to having a limit on the number of guns they can buy in a certain period (i.e. ten on one month), or having their name and their gun's fingerprint in a central government database--why would they? The only people who would object to such things are gun traffickers--and those are the people who are the real problem.
Like many issues in the United States, the right to own a gun is being used to polarize people across party lines (i.e. Republican's want to shoot the place up and Dems want to let the state be the only owners of guns).
The fact is, most people are reasonable.... and most reasonable people believe in reasonable gun ownership rights. The problem is that the conversation is stuck in a debate between the two extremes: no gun control and no guns.
Note: When I lived in New York City I was very anti-gun since a major city is not the place to own a gun. When I moved to Los Angeles and live in, essentially, "the country" in Brentwood I'm pro having a gun because someone could hop the fence of my house and attack my family and NO ONE would be able to do/hear/see anything (unlike New York City). So, I think where you live informs much of your thinking about guns.
Tags: 2ndamendment, secondamendment, guns, guncontrol
Helpful Answer?
(3)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Answered Question
M$2
July 16, 2009 12:51 AM
How do you feel about the Second Amendment? Should it be rewritten or does it still stand today? Why?
The Second Amendment protects a right to keep and bear arms from infringement by the federal government. 
Interesting Question?
Yes (13)
No (0)
Interesting: justinliudvinaitis, krusheasy, krysstel, jeffhoard, dannyjohnson, easyeboy, buddawiggi, lon, ayla_zed, sysaaron, sunshine09, darknessfalls, jasoncalacanis
- In US History |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Decided by Votes
| July 16, 2009 04:49 PM |
I was raised to respect guns. We had rifles in the house. Sure, they were grandpa's rifles, but if you put a bullet in one and pulled the trigger, it would fire. Dad never hunted and never took me hunting. So I have never killed anything with a firearm.
The first gun I fired was at Boy Scout Camp. It was a .22 caliber rifle. I also fired an AK-47 for the first time at Scout camp. Over the years I have owned 2 handguns, both 9mm. I have attended training classes and seminars and had a concealed carry permit for a while. That said, I never carried my weapon. I was taught if you even pointed the weapon at something, be prepared to pull the trigger. OR, if you don't want to kill it, don't point your gun at it.
Do I believe we have a problem with gun control in this country? YES
Do I believe gun laws should actaully be enforced? YES
Do I beleive the 2nd amendment should be rewritten? NO
I believe gun control means hitting your target. I believe that while guns helped win the west, guns are also killing this nation. However, Hollywood has glamorized guns. Guns and violence help sell movies.
Responsibility- Its something that wen't out the door a long time ago. People should be responsible for their actions. If this nation actually enforced the gun laws currently on the books, we'd have to build more prisons. Too many people are getting a slap on the wrist and going back to doing what they were doing before.
Education- I was raised around guns. I knew what guns would do at a young age. I know people who own a small arsenal, yet they don't wave their weapons around in public. They have never used those weapons in the commision of a crime. We should educate people more about the dangers of guns. I also believe if a gun is used in a crime, it should be an automatic life sentence w no parole. Rob a liquor store with a gun-thats it, you're gone. That will stop all the problems with guns immediately.
I've ranted enough on this, but let me leave you with a quote from Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, leader of the Japanese Army in WWII.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Permalink | Report
Voted as best: badaspie, chriswingate
Reply
Other Answers (16)
July 16, 2009 04:59 AM
10!!! Holy, sorry to hear that, I am 28 years old and have yet to even hold a gun, the only time I ever saw a real loaded gun was at a range, I've never even met a gun owner.
/Canada eh
Report
/Canada eh
July 16, 2009 08:16 PM
hi Jeff and nice to "meet you". I'm not a gun owner ;-)
From my Uncle being fatally shot (mistaken for a deer)
to another Uncle with Post Traumatic Stress from Korea's attempted suicide, to a cousin with PTSS from Vietnam era's suicide, to a cousin's death in a bad drug deal.... Yes. pretty bad. Maybe I've seen more 'cause I'm older (57).... but it leaves me speechless. My favorite post above says "I don't like idiots with guns." Required training would be great. Peace and out!
Report
From my Uncle being fatally shot (mistaken for a deer)
to another Uncle with Post Traumatic Stress from Korea's attempted suicide, to a cousin with PTSS from Vietnam era's suicide, to a cousin's death in a bad drug deal.... Yes. pretty bad. Maybe I've seen more 'cause I'm older (57).... but it leaves me speechless. My favorite post above says "I don't like idiots with guns." Required training would be great. Peace and out!
July 16, 2009 10:42 AM
I found a hilarious story relating to this topic about the Mayor of Chicago Richard Daley who is an a anti-gun supporter yet is escorted by an armed guard who protected him from an escaped killer.
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d15-Daleys-armed-bodyguard-proves-mayors-hypocrisy
This story is another example why the courts or congress needs to clarify that the 2nd amendment does apply to state and local governments.
Report
http://www.examiner.com/x-1417-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d15-Daleys-armed-bodyguard-proves-mayors-hypocrisy
This story is another example why the courts or congress needs to clarify that the 2nd amendment does apply to state and local governments.
July 16, 2009 03:20 AM
I'm in favor of gun control and dislike the extent of the influence the NRA and similar groups have on policy. And I do realize the amendment was written during a much more volatile time when warfare was conducted much differently. I don't, however, think that the 2nd Amendment needs to be repealed, amended, or otherwise changed. It would take a terrible amount of time, legislation, and hurt feelings for something that the states would simply step in and change anyway.
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 16, 2009 03:22 AM
Without the 2nd amendment the rest are meaningless. We need guns. I realize people use guns in violent crimes, but they will no matter what the 2nd amendment says.
Helpful Answer?
(7)
(0)
Helpful: jeffhoard, bunnyphuphu, beast1oh1, sarabond, dannyjohnson, jasoncalacanis, defolts
Tip colonial butros for this answer
Reply
July 16, 2009 05:05 AM
As a Canadian, I have nothing to add to this debate, but you get my upvote for posting Penn and Teller
Report
July 16, 2009 06:22 PM
As a Canadian Jeff has every right to speak up on this issue since the Canadian people have to deal with the constant fallout of our policies. I love Penn and Teller, too, eh?
Report
July 16, 2009 07:42 PM
Canadians and Mexicans suffer from the USA's policy on this issue. They don't get to vote to change it; but, they can express opinions.
But about this answer, what possible reason is there for thinking that the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights would be meaningless without guns? There is no connection!
Report
But about this answer, what possible reason is there for thinking that the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights would be meaningless without guns? There is no connection!
July 16, 2009 10:09 PM
How can we protect the other amendments if we don't have guns to defend them with. Gun are supposed to be a deterrent against people and governments who want to take our rights
Report
July 16, 2009 11:56 PM
although, i do have to say ... i am not sure i want that woman carrying a loaded weapon. hmm...
Report
July 17, 2009 01:43 AM
Does anyone think that they could take their hunting rifle and fight it out with a tank? Or a jet bomber? Or even a soldier with a 50 cal machine gun? Of course not. This whole argument is preposterous. The protections in the Constitution are protected by our tradition of rule of law, not by private weapons.
Report
July 16, 2009 04:18 AM
It should not be rewritten. That would set a dangerous precedent that could open other amendments to being rewritten. It may be open to interpretation, though. The amendment clearly says "a well regulated militia." How is every tom, dick, and harry having a gun a well regulated militia protecting the security of the state, aka the country? This was written during a time when everyone was potentially a member of the military, and might need to be called on immediately.
In that light, I see nothing wrong with having regulations on gun ownership and bearing of arms. People getting guns need to be law abiding citizens, and a thorough background check should always be required. They should need a license to carry the weapon, and it should specify if they can have it concealed or not.
In this case, I think "the people" needs to be interpreted as "law abiding citizens/legal immigrants."
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 16, 2009 07:44 PM
Other amendments have been removed, and new ones added. It would not be a precedent because there are already lots of precedents. The constitution is a living document. Now it is indeed hard to change, that's part of the point. But if a change is needed it can, and always has been, changed.
Report
July 16, 2009 08:26 AM
I think we deserve the right to bear arms. If we make guns illegal, the good people will give up their guns and not be able to defend themselves from the criminals who will not care that they are illegal and continue to use them. If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns!
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 16, 2009 07:48 PM
If guns are outlawed, criminals won't be able to steal them from the good people. They won't be there to steal. It has to be nationwide though.
Report
July 16, 2009 02:14 PM
I've always found it funny that the first amendment is taken so literally (freedom of speech) and the second amendment (well armed militia) is not. I think if you want to have a gun you should be reporting to militia training where they can teach gun safety.
I'm not against guns, i'm against idiots with guns.
Helpful Answer?
(8)
(0)
Helpful: buddawiggi, jeffhoard, ayla_zed, daisyjre, bunnyphuphu, krysstel, sarabond, darknessfalls
Tip warpedspeed for this answer
Reply
July 16, 2009 02:25 PM
Peronsally, I don't own guns and don't care to. If I need to defend myself, I have other means like stun gun, pepper spray, and for long distance shots, I'm one heck of an archer. However, I also oppose rewriting the Second Amendment. I, too, believe that would set a dangerous precedent as someone above mentioned. Here we have a classic argument of individual freedom versus protecting the citizens of this great country. The reality of the situation is that no matter how many rules and laws we put into place controlling people's activities, there will always be accidents. There will always be deaths and injuries. It's human nature to take things to the extreme, yet to constantly make more and more rules and laws governing the citizens of this nation would mean more and more freedoms gone. Unfortunately, guns will always be around now and there isn't much we can do about it. They are now, sadly, an integral part of our every day lives from soldiers protecting America, to individuals hunting wild game, to gangs fighting on the street. If we made guns illegal, the only people getting the guns would be criminals, which would make good decent people easy marks.
Unfortunately, we are not living back in pioneer days anymore when people carried their rifles everywhere. Back then, gun safety was taught by the family at an early age. Getting your first rifle as a child was a part of growing up, an integral part of your education on being an adult. These days, people aren't used to guns and have no clue how to use one safely. Most people don't know you should always treat a gun as if it were loaded, even if you are sure it isn't, so accidents tend to happen more often. If nothing else, I think owning a gun should come with some major class time and hands-on training to help the average modern person understand gun safety a little better.
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 16, 2009 04:45 PM
Every amendment has some limitations. This should too. I would allow every adult citizen to keep a single shot rifle and a shot gun. This would be denied to those who have committed a felony or who have a history of mental illness. In addition, I would limit handguns to women (to even the odds.) Personally, I enjoy shooting. My grandfather taught me to shoot when I was ten. I have hunted deer, rabbits and birds. Changing demographics require a flexible constitution. Otherwise, we will become a nation of people who retreat every night to our fortresses behind bars.
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 16, 2009 05:45 PM
Pardon my naivete, but what do you mean by "limit handguns to women (to even the odds.)"
Report
July 16, 2009 06:02 PM
I mean that throughout history women have had to live in a world where men often are dangerous to them. If men knew that only women had a right to have something deadly in those big purse things that they carry around, men might tend to act a little more respectfully and women might feel a little less threatened.
Report
July 16, 2009 07:50 PM
Limiting guns to those muzzle loaders which were available at the time the 2nd amendment was enacted has always seemed a reasonable idea to me.
Report
July 17, 2009 03:49 PM
I appreciate your concern for the female gender, but 1. these days women are a lot better able to take care of themselves; and 2. We already have a percentage of women who, whenever they encounter a man they want to get back at, call the police and lie to them about being hit, all the while fake crying, and end up ruining the man's life and costing him a bundle. Yes, I am a female, but I have seen this many times and it even hit home for me when my husband's very evil, vindictive sister did this. She never even went to the doctor and had no injuries, but he got carted off to jail for the first time in his 40-years-of-age because of this. It was ridiculous and it happens to many men all the time. Remember that there are good and bad people in all genders, ethnicities, races, cultures, etc. Also remember that women have their own "advantages" that even up the odds for them.
Report
July 16, 2009 05:00 PM
The 2nd amendment is completely misinterpreted by both sides of the current controversy. "To bear arms" means to serve in the army. That's what it meant then and that's what it means now. The talk of militia was because the militia was thought to be better than a standing army by the Founding Fathers but that is no longer the case. Courts have said the militia became the National Guard which amounts to the same as the Army for this purpose. Tanks, artillery, machine guns, rocket grenades: that's the sort of weapons that the National Guard and Army use now. No one is trying to interpret the amendment to allow private possession of these. But you learn to use them in the Army.
People have forgotten why it was important to guarantee everyone the right to serve in the army. At that time it was still commonplace for minorities to be denied the right to serve in the army, and that was part of the way they were discriminated against and oppressed. Jews in particular had to struggle for the right to serve in the militia in colonial times. Catholics were prohibited in some countries, and of course Blacks were frequently kept from serving. Religious and racial minorities are still discriminated against in this way in numerous countries around the world. The 2nd amendment was designed, along with the others of the Bill of Rights, to prevent discrimination against minorities.
The true modern application of the USA's 2nd amendment is that Gays and Lesbians must be allowed to serve equally in the military. Keeping them out makes them second class citizens, just as other minorities were in the past. Equality in this respect is required by the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms.
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 16, 2009 11:50 PM
This is truly the best interpretation of the second amendment I've ever heard, every citizen should have the right to bear arms, in "a well regulated militia" (aka the Army) but this amendment neither makes private ownership legal or illegal.
Report
July 17, 2009 12:32 AM
"To bear arms" means to serve in the army......thats insane
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50
Report
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50
July 17, 2009 12:43 AM
It is quite sane, that is what the phrase means. You bear arms for your country. It has always had that meaning. You don't see the phrase that often in common conversation and people forgot what it meant. Find the phrase in any old books, or modern ones for that matter other than the ones debating the 2nd ammendment.
Report
July 17, 2009 12:50 AM
There were minorities, as I just explained. And citizenship was not restricted to whites or to men. There were many restrictions on voting but that was separate from citizenship. And the Bill of Rights extended to all the people not just citizens. For example, there were many new immigrants then and now who were not citizens and could not vote but were still accorded full constitutional protection.
Report
July 16, 2009 06:25 PM
I think the right of the people (as local group) to keep and bear arms as a Militia is a good idea, and well thought out by the framers of our Constitution and our Freedoms. However, I do not think it is the right of every individual citizen to own and carry an AK, not for any reason under the sun.
The people who want us to all be able to own assault weapons and automatic killing machines are the people who are making money by it. The people who are dying by it, not so much.....
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 16, 2009 06:33 PM
I'm a hunter and I love to shoot trap. I don't think it's fair to take away guns from people who use them correctly. That being said, there are a lot of idiots out there who have no idea how to handle guns and anything about gun safety. Hunters safety courses are a good way to learn. Even with gun control, which I am for to a certain extent, you can't stop criminals from getting guns. If they can't buy them they will steal them to commit the crimes.
This is from the UMKC law website:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question: Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns; Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license; and Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting. The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand. At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights. The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership.
Source(s):
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 16, 2009 11:11 PM
This is how I see it. No, it does not need to be rewritten however, I do believe that we have many people that hold guns for several reasons, hunting, protecting ourselves and our families. But people also carry guns just to have the "Tough" look and that is where I feel something should be done. We have way too many children and young teens thinking that carrying a gun is a good thing and that they can not only carry the thing but can shoot whenever and at who ever they get upset or mad at. So for me I do believe in the 2nd Amendment, but I think there should be much more control over having guns and ammunition.
Source(s):
personal opinion
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 17, 2009 12:32 AM
1. I believe that people should have the right to own a gun if they obey the laws associated with safety, storage, waiting period, etc. 2. I believe that individual communities (i.e. your town, city, state, etc) should be able to define their own regulations. For example, a dozen people carrying hand guns in a dense New York City Subway doesn't sound like a train I would like to ride on!
3. Clearly we need to put restrictions on the number and type of guns people buy, who sells these guns, and overall we need a central way to track this information. No sport of hobby gun owner would object to having a limit on the number of guns they can buy in a certain period (i.e. ten on one month), or having their name and their gun's fingerprint in a central government database--why would they? The only people who would object to such things are gun traffickers--and those are the people who are the real problem.
Like many issues in the United States, the right to own a gun is being used to polarize people across party lines (i.e. Republican's want to shoot the place up and Dems want to let the state be the only owners of guns).
The fact is, most people are reasonable.... and most reasonable people believe in reasonable gun ownership rights. The problem is that the conversation is stuck in a debate between the two extremes: no gun control and no guns.
Note: When I lived in New York City I was very anti-gun since a major city is not the place to own a gun. When I moved to Los Angeles and live in, essentially, "the country" in Brentwood I'm pro having a gun because someone could hop the fence of my house and attack my family and NO ONE would be able to do/hear/see anything (unlike New York City). So, I think where you live informs much of your thinking about guns.
Tags: 2ndamendment, secondamendment, guns, guncontrol
Helpful Answer?
(3)
(0)
Helpful: ayla_zed, dannyjohnson, defolts
Tip jasoncalacanis for this answer
Reply
July 28, 2009 11:11 PM
I did not think of Brentwood as being the country but I guess if you come from NYC it could be.
Report
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- joshuawdavies, November 25, 2009 04:43 PM
- francinewiltshi..., November 25, 2009 04:34 PM
- shellijean, November 25, 2009 04:13 PM
- ricky_jain8, November 25, 2009 04:12 PM
- nicholasxavier6..., November 25, 2009 04:04 PM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
responsibility. yes.
Funny thing is I know people who can do more damage with a laptop than a gun...