Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 9 years ago

Should we amend the constitution to make gun ownership a privilege instead of a right?

Everyday 34 people die from guns.

95% of all school shootings happen in America.

Only in America can criminals can easily get their hands on guns with no background checks.

28 Answers

  • Mathew
    Lv 7
    9 years ago
    Best Answer


    The ONLY thing gun restrictions do is keep the guns out of the hands of the poor and the law-abiding (not necessarily mutually exclusive; many, many poor people are also law-abiding). The reason I say that is because one has to do certain things in order to "earn" the privilege, and that often (VERY often) costs money (for the license if for nothing else) and often for a lawyer. The rich can afford to pay a lawyer to get the necessary paperwork, and the criminals don't care about the laws anyway, so they'll just build or steal guns from the law-abiding gun owners.

    More, gun registration and licensing means lists of who has the guns, and whenever the government wants to (or an invading army, as was shown in the movie "Red Dawn"), they will just go to the houses of the gun owners and confiscate the guns and perhaps arrest the gun owners for 'reprisals' and as object lessons to any who would dare oppose the government or invading army.

    Finally, gun laws put the honest citizens at the mercy of the criminals, since the criminals can be sure the law-abiding citizen is less capable of defending him or herself without a gun against the criminal's attack.

    Gun laws mean more more than 4000 women raped per year. Do you really want more women raped? Do you want the poor to be at the mercy of the rich or the criminals or the invading armies? Are you really that evil? Or did you just not think this through?


    "States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%; and if those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly."

    [close quote]

    Source: FIREARMS FACT-SHEET (1999), by Gun Owners Foundation

    8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102 Springfield, VA 22151

    "Gun control" is more accurately and honestly known as "Victim Disarmament". Those who advocate gun control laws are either rapist enablers or the rapists themselves. There is no middle ground here. Are you for more rapes, or not?

  • 9 years ago

    No, we should not amend the constitution to make gun ownership a privilege instead of a right any more than we should make voting a privilege instead of a right.

    You assertion that only in America can criminals easily get their hands on guns with no background checks is far, far off base. In numerous other countries criminals are armed and have no problem getting guns. In England, an island for Pete' sake, gun crime has gone up ten fold since they outlawed guns.

    Also there has NEVER been a legitimate study that proves that gun control has ever reduced crime. Never. Trying to outlaw guns simply doesn't work. It never has. All it does it make it more difficult for the law abiding to have the best means of defending themselves. I frankly have to laugh at people that thing if they pass more gun law, criminals will start complying when they are ignoring the current 20,000+ gun laws already on the books across this country.

    People are not dying from guns, they are dying from other people who have no respect for human life. Maybe we should by setting an example by murdering unborn babies?

    By the way if Glen Beck is an idiot, we need more like him.

  • 9 years ago

    Well in 2005 115 people died everyday from car crashes in the US. That's one person every 13 minutes. But then again, driving is not a right. It's a privilege. So there's two sides to this argument with totally opposite competing policies that are both equally important. 1 safety, and 2 keeping the government fair. It's not that Americans are going to start a revolution anytime soon (I hope) but the fact that a militia could easily be assembled makes sure the government stays in check and doesn't become oppressive. Additionally, since when have criminals ever gone through proper channels for anything??? The criminals would have an easier time if it was illegal because they would have the connections to the black market and the black market would be bigger, because there would be less competition from legitimate gun sellers. Mexico is a prime example. Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws on the planet yet they have one of the highest gun mortality rate.

  • 9 years ago

    You do realize that the second amendment exists to protect joe farmer from the very government you are suggesting here should approve a man's ability to carry a weapon.


    GUNS do not shoot people. People shoot other people WITH guns. Let's look at who's actually pulling the trigger. Do you blame a knife if someone is stabbed? A blunt object if someone is bludgeoned to death? Do you blame an electrical cord if someone is electrocuted? Should these things be made illegal since they have the potential to kill someone if used in the wrong hands?

    "But only guns are intended to kill."

    So? Their purpose is to defend, or to hunt. They, like any other tool have a purpose, and just because someone uses them for something that is NOT that purpose does not make the object any more or less evil. It is a tool.


    The most deadly shootings take place in gun-free zones because no one can defend against the odd individual who gets his hand on that tool and misuses it. It's safe to say in all those cases if anyone had a weapon and used it PROPERLY more people would be alive today.


    Background checks are a deterrent, but not a preventative. Gun violence is actually HIGHER in nations which have gun-control laws, such as the ones you are suggesting, in place. If guns are made illegal, do you really think a criminal will respect the law and not get one? And even if he did, what other weapons would he use? A bomb? A sword? There are endless possibilities.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Cheryl
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    I'm not American and gun ownership is pretty tightly controlled in this country. I've known several people who own pistols, rifles, shotguns, whatever. These firearms are in safe hands, as far as I can see. But some firearms are not in safe hands. As I understand it, gun ownership in the USA is a constitutional right. Fair enough. However that right was written in when perhaps the most complex firearm was double barrelled and capable of two shots before a period of reloading was needed. Mostly though a firearm in the 18th century was a single shot affair, not very accurate and with a limited range. Did the founding fathers anticipate automatic or even repeating firearms with mass production making them cheap? Since the invention of repeating firearms in the 1850s the situation has been different. Prior to that, the crazed people who massacre children in schools or snipe at passers-by from buildings could only kill or wound one or two before they had to reload. Now a magazine holding ten or more rounds allows them to kill as many as they please until they run out of magazines. The situation is quantitatively different to that of the 18th century. Another side to the debate is the idea that ownership of firearms by the citizenry is some sort of guarantee of freedom, allowing them to resist government or other injustice. It does not make any tactical or strategic sense. a group of armed citizens resisting some military or police force likely has a variety of weapons of different calibres and will run out of ammunition one by one pretty rapidly unless they are well enough organised to all have the same ammunition for weapons of the same calibre. Given the arguments I saw on a survivalist forum a few years ago that level of organisation seems pretty unlikely. In addition, the largest weapon a citizen is likely to be able to afford is outclassed by the weapons any police or military force can bring to bear. What use is a large bore rifle against artillery or armoured vehicles? Not much. Statistics appear to show that those using firearms to defend their homes against burglars etc are more likely to injure themselves or a family member than the attackers. Or so I have read. The arguments for uncontrolled ownership of firearms seem pretty pointless.

  • Don't give selective interpretationists of the 2nd amendment any unsolicited ideas.

    They might try to amend the 2nd to make it a litmus test for citizenship ad infinitum.

    I find that people who have some of the craziest ideas about gun ownership tend to amplify their inherent crazy whenever they start to wax paranoid about some fictional GOV entity making a knee-jerk decision, (much like unwarranted paranoia) about restricting or confiscating their precious guns.

    I was trained to use several types of guns, rifles and shotguns while in the military, guns are used for one thing, to kill things made of organic flesh.

    I don't buy into the false argument that guns are used as a deterrent because if that were the case, then the same slippery slope of begging the question about nuclear weapons as a deterrent are just as valid if not just as absurd, especially when some brass would rather use nuclear weapons as a deterrent, than just claim to possess a weapon capable of striking a known distant target as a hypothetical deterrent.

    I agree with Dr. Zaius, most 2nd amendment advocates are more obsessed with gun rights, than they are with gun responsibility.

    Source(s): Observation
  • 9 years ago

    We have guns so we don't have what took place at Tianamen Square in China. They were a disarmed populace protesting their government before the military of China came in and shot unarmed civillians. Also the Kent State shootings could have been avoided if the people were armed.

    Finally, why police the world when we have an armed populace who can repel any invasion of the United States as well as two oceans? If for the reasons mentioned above there is no need to police the world, why would we ever need conscription?

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    No - I love my guns.. But I think that if we are going to use the 2nd amendment to support private gun ownership - then we shouldn't ignore the "well REGULATED militia" part and make it that if you want to be a gun owner - then you have to sign up for the Militia and get drilled, meet physical fitness requirements, get called up in time of National and State need. The problem I see is that 2nd amendment advocates are only half assing the amendment and focusing on the right and not the responsibility.

  • 9 years ago

    Never it is the only thing that guarantees our freedom without them we are subject to anybody that want to take us over. this is one right we should be willing to die for our freedom depends on it. Obama is already making bullet prices through the roof and ammo that only last a short time. Curious about why our government is so worried about us owning guns and making ammo that doesn't last for any period of time. Why does our government fear the people they are supposed to be representing. Perhaps because they no longer represent us. The working class is being forgotten.

  • BruceN
    Lv 7
    9 years ago

    Heller v. DC didn't rule that a city or state could not impose reasonable restrictions. It just said that a city cannot enact a blanket prohibition on handgun ownership. I personally would like to see every gun owner trained, tested and licensed by the NRA, like PADI does for Scuba Divers.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.