GUN CONTROL guns, virginia tech, 2nd amendment?

PLEASE explain WHY we must have gun shops for the general public. WHY? I am looking for a REAL GOOD REASON. Protection?, come on! The 2nd amendment right to bear arms is ludicrous TODAY, maybe 200+ years ago but NOT today. Only law enforcement and certified security personnel need guns. Surely with gun control crazies would not conveniently buy guns, some would, many would be rejected or puzzled by the purchase process or street dealing.

target shooting? hunting? give em up like one has to give up a sport because of injury. I ruined my knee, had to give up basketball, baseball... but took up bike riding. life has disappointments. sure many crazies would find other ways but some would NOT. HOW freakin important is your obsolete civil war mentality and god damn need to shoot TARGETS!!! former NY'er I've been victim to 2 violent crimes, and I was on Bernie Goetz's side from the git. We do NOT need GUNS to protect ourselves from the govt. They stick it up our butts in ways guns cant.

23 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    What I don't understand is why the assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse. Had it still been in effect a month ago, this kid Cho could not have purchased any more than a ten-round clip, as I understand the facts to be. Of course, any bullets at all in this kid's hands was a nightmare scenario, but since there was no longer an assault weapons ban, he killed some three times as many people as he would have otherwise.

    I dig the Constitution and am trying to be at peace with the Second Amendment. What I want someone to explain is WHAT is a "well regulated militia" and whether the comma after "arms" might actually mean something other than what the NRA thinks it does.

  • 1 decade ago

    If your opposed to the second amendment then don't own guns.

    The reason people have firearms ranges from personal protection to to recreation. Whether you like or not peolpe have these rights. I imagie someone who has been the victim of 2 violent crimes would be more sympathetic to the right to bear arms.

    Another thing to consider is not everybody lives in a major city where police respond quickly. In rural areas guns are both a tradition and a necessity.

    I too used to live in NYC, so I can relate to some of what your saying. However, living in a rural Southwestern area, wild animals are now my biggest threat, and on accasion using a firearm has been necessary.

    What people don't seem to understand is, that no matter how many gun laws you pass, you can't legislate what people are going to do with them once they purchase one.

  • That is your opinion, and you have every right to it.

    But do you honestly think that not having gun shops will stop guns and crimes committed with guns? If someone wants a gun, they are going to get a gun. That is that. At least with the gun shops it puts up some sort of "regulation".

    The shooter at VA Tech passed the background check. But why should we penalize people for something they haven't done yet, but could? Hell, no man can be left alone with a child, for most child preditors are male, and this would keep children safe from being molested or abused. It is the same thing.

    I think that every person has the right to figure out how they want to live and run their lives. It is not up to the government to legislate morality, and it is not up to the government to decide how a person is going to live. Going down that road will bring us much closer to Orwell's "1984" and "Big Brother".

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    If he hadn't bought the guns in a gun shop, he would have gotten them on the street. And what if he had made a bomb instead, a'la Timothy McVeigh, or poisoned the cafeteria, or put a chemical agent in the heating sytem?

    This school knew he was a nut case some time ago, yet they did nothing. He wrote papers so disturbing that the school won't realease them to the media. He set fires, he made bomb threats. Why was he still at the school? The gun purchases were just the beginning of the end of a downward spiral that could have been stopped months ago.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I feel the 2nd amendment is always taken out of context when USA citizens are discussing their right to carry guns. If you really read the constitution and look at the history and context of the requirements that the government of the day wanted people to carry weapons its clear that the government of the time was trying to ensure the security and safety of their people. Over the years where these guns have been turned to different uses and the fact that USA being a super power would never really require the people to form a Militia to come to the defense of the nation means that the amendment is no longer relevant to its needs and should have been sort long ago. It like the really ancient laws that Europe had on it book which allowed the beating of women during daylight hour to keep her in line - it is ludicrous in this day and age.

    However I feel gun toting Americans will not change their way regardless of how many of there children are killed.

    It is so sad, - I expect the millions of tears shed will just be soaked up by the fabric of American life and things will move on.

    So, sad.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    You are so naive.

    Oh, I am ALL for getting guns out of the hands of people like Cho. But, even if we ban them COMPLETELY, so that no one can go buy a handgun, shotgun, rifle, assault weapon....nothing......do you REALLY think that will stop things like this from happening? Not at all. When you have someone who is determined to take their rage out on the world, they will find the means to do it. So, go ahead and close down EVERY gun shop in the world. So no one can legally buy a gun. What is THAT going to do?

    Not a God blessed thing.

    Source(s): police-10 years
  • 1 decade ago

    While we're at it lets ban freedom of speech. The only reason people use it is to bash someone else, or the government. Let's also ban the freedom of press, then we won't have to read all them lies in the tabloids. Of course the Fourth Amendment has got to go, that way we could kick in doors at random to see who is violating the law and who isn't. Heck, let's just burn the Constitution and start all over. All of those rights are over 200 years old and are outdated. Don't you agree?

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I am a hard core Liberal and I think gun ownership is a pursue of happiness if someone gets their kicks off shooting a gun in a safe place so be it. I also don`t think you should not eat anything you are not willing kill yourself. I see the Republican talking points are that the Liberals want to take your guns away put I think these days it is the extreme religious right that wants guns ban.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Hunting and fishing is a way of life in my family and we have always had and Will always have guns. The 2nd admendment is there for a reasaon. Let me get this straight, just because you screwed up your knee and had to quit sports, then we should have to give up something too? Your the same liberal that says "what is your is mine"! Security of our property and families is a must, especially in today's liberal screwed up world, with people like you. Gun control is HITTING your target! People kill people, not guns! Go back to your kool-aide! And I agree with Alan!

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Excuse me but, your reasoning is exactly the same that got hitler in power. In the broadest since Citizens need guns to protect them from an oppresive government. in todays enviroment We need guns and other weapons to protect our persons, Because the police and security guards cannot be there 24/7 and because the police is not there to protect you as an individual they are to maintain order and protect thr public at large.(There is also the famous court case, in which a woman who sued the DC police for taking over two hours to respond to her call of an intruder entering her house, was told that the police had no responsibility for the safety of individual citizens. She was beaten and raped; the police arrived just in time to do nothing. ) Bottom line is we need lots of guns and other implements of destruction and the training to use them properly.

    Source(s): The highest district court in DC spelled it out plainly: "... the fundamental principle is that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." (Warren v. DC 444 A 2d 1,4 (DC 1984).
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.