ANSWERS: 15
  • i think its a good idea, i hate guns
    • ReiSan
      That is unconstitutional!
    • Venus1485
      It's a bad idea that's tyrannical. Guns are the best means of self-defense, and you wsant to remove them. That's senseless.
    • Sandra Ursula
      It's rebellion against the USA to want to change the US Constitution. Move to Australia.
  • No. The 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution for a reason.
  • That's nonsense. There are places where there are lots of guns and little crime. There's a sickness in our culture that we need to look at.
    • Hardcore Conservative
      Agreed. It's not the tool that causes the crime, it's the person.
    • OC Joe
      In fact the cities in the US with the most strict gun laws have, per capita, the least homocides. It is true that the tool does not cause the crime but but when the NRA fights against denying guns to people known to be unstable or have mental issues that guarantees guns in the hands of crazy people.
    • Linda Joy
      "As it turns out, though, in the United States and the rest of the developed world, total murder and suicide rates, from all causes, do not increase with rates of gun ownership -- or drop under tougher gun laws [sources: Killias, van Kesteren and Rindlisbacher; Liptak]."
    • Linda Joy
      " It is possible to have a violent society without guns. Prime evidence of that is the former Soviet Union and its successor states such as Russia, which despite stringent gun control laws, posted murder rates from 1965-1999 that far outstripped the rest of the developed world [sources: Kates and Mauser; Kessler; Pridemore]. The killers in question did not obtain illegal firearms -- they simply employed other weapons [source: Kleck]."
    • Roaring
      What I would like to see is All gun owners get thorough training. I would also like to see officers get extensive training in deescalating situations. Not to use lethal force as a first choice. too many unnecessary deaths.
    • Hardcore Conservative
      So we should have extensive training for all Constitutional rights? The right to vote can be more dangerous that a pistol, yet you don't even have to show an ID to use it. And as a former police officer, I can tell you that officers DO get extensive training in use of force situations. What's happening though is a shift in society, not the police.
    • Roaring
      Both have changed. What is more recent is the laws regarding self defense. In many places the bar to shoot to kill has been lowered to "if you feel threatened' What about the constitutional rights of the wrongly killed dead woman or man? That said i want to extend my respect to you in your service as an officer to the community.
    • Mircat
      Voting doesnt kill anyone. Guns do. There should be mandatory gun training laws and I am a gun owner.
    • Hardcore Conservative
      Roaring, the laws have pretty much stayed the same. There have been no laws changed that lowers the bar on when you're allowed to defend yourself. You're allowed to use deadly force when you're threatened with "serious bodily harm or death," or the defend someone else under the same threat. The changes have been with many Castle Doctrine states (where you no longer have a "duty to retreat" your home when possible). Many of those laws have been change to expand those areas where you no longer have that duty to retreat, in your car, for example. And in the vast majority of cases where the "Castle Doctrine" or "Stand Your Ground" legal doctrine is used, it's when the assailant is an intruder in someone's home. Again, it's a legal doctrine, not usually a law. More like an idea behind the justifiable homicide defense. And where are the rights of the dead? In most cases, they surrender them when they break into the home or try to carjack the wrong person. And what you might think of as "wrongly killed" is subjective. A jury would decide whether or no the intruder was "wrongly killed." All that said, I appreciate the respect. In most cases, being a police officer is a thankless job. The hours suck, the pay isn't that great and you have everyone and their brother Monday-morning quarterbacking every decision that you have mere seconds to make. But I enjoyed it.
    • Hardcore Conservative
      Mircat, if you think that votes don't kill, you need to brush up on your history. One most obvious example is that the Nazis were elected into power in 1929, with Hitler himself being elected in 1933. That didn't turn out so well for Europe. Robert Mugabe was elected to office. Omar al-Bashir (who oversaw the killing in Darfur) was elected 3 times after seizing power in a coup. Hugo Chavez was elected to office and his population is starving. So, yeah. Voting does kill sometimes. That's why we don't have a pure democracy here. When 51 percent of the people decide to take from the other 49 percent because of simple vote, problems arise. That's expressly why our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutional republic. "A Republic, ma'am, if you can keep it." - Ben Franklin
  • I advocate an extra 10 years in prison when committing a crime with what can be considered a weapon.Even purposely hitting someone with a car or a bat.
  • Absolutely not but I also absolutely believe in gun control especially as that pertains to automatic weapons and assault type weapons.
    • Hardcore Conservative
      Automatic weapons are already controlled. And what are "assault type weapons?" Handguns kill thousands more people here in the US than rifles. Why not the handguns?
    • ReiSan
      True assault rifles are automatic, so they are already strictly regulated.
  • i wish they would do that
    • ReiSan
      It is unconstitutional.
    • Sandra Ursula
      I wish you'd move to a place where you can't own guns. You'll never get mine.
  • No, that is excessive.
  • No... that's ridiculous. I do think, however, that going hog wild in the direction of "all types of guns for everybody" is even dumber. I'd like to see gun control that focused on the weapons easily used for mass murder, like high clip capacity automatic weapons.... and those that can be modded to be so. I mean, I sure couldn't cause the kind of havoc with my .357 as people do with assault type weapons.
    • Hardcore Conservative
      Automatic weapons are already controlled.
    • Hardcore Conservative
      The vast amount of murders and attempted murders happen with handguns, Subject. NOT, the so called "assault weapons."
  • No! Guns are not the problem! " It is possible to have a violent society without guns. Prime evidence of that is the former Soviet Union and its successor states such as Russia, which despite stringent gun control laws, posted murder rates from 1965-1999 that far outstripped the rest of the developed world [sources: Kates and Mauser; Kessler; Pridemore]. The killers in question did not obtain illegal firearms -- they simply employed other weapons [source: Kleck]."
  • I do but it will never happen unless they change the second amendment. Try to do that and watch insurrection happen! And, I own a gun.
    • Venus1485
      Changing the US Constitution is criminal.
    • Sandra Ursula
      Trying to change the 2nd Amendment is insurrection.
  • No, it is unconstitutional. The 2nd Amendment gives people the right to own guns. I do not favor violation of the US Constitution.
  • No, I most certainly don't. Guns are the best mean of self-defense, so they should never be taken away. The strong can do as they like to the weak if the weak have no guns. Dictators can more easily seize power if the populance is unarmed.
  • depends on if theyre using it to kill people
    • Venus1485
      It is justifiable homicide when you kill in wself-defense.
  • Hell NO! The US Constitution gives us the right to own guns. Anybody who wants to discard our Constitution and deny our freedoms is a traitor to the USA. People who are so anti-gun can move to England or Australia that have no guns for citizens already. Don't try to change our country.
  • The 2nd Amendment was created to protect militias. Back then a "Militia" referred to a group of men or groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, once the United States declared its independence from Great Britain in 1776. If this were still 1776, I might stand by those who don't want to "lose their guns". As far as this particular Movement is concerned, I think banning guns - well, we see what happens when we try to ban drugs, and we know what happened when we attempted Prohibition in 1920 - 1933, so I don't believe that is the answer either. Reform, yes, but a complete ban - that will not work.
    • Archie Bunker
      "Militia" was defined as every able-bodied male able to bear arms, so the gals will have to turn in their guns. And the US Supreme Court has already ruled that the right to possess firearms is an individual right, (District of Columbia v Heller) not only when part of an organized militia. It is not a collective right and the "militia" also includes the "unorganized militia," which, again, is every able-bodied male. This is backed by the writings of the founding fathers on the issue. It's never been about hunting. It's about defending oneself from tyranny. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy