|
|
| The right to bear arms |
| Yes - with strict restrictions |
|
40% |
[ 2 ] |
| Yes - with looser restrictions |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Nay |
|
20% |
[ 1 ] |
| Undecided |
|
40% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:55 pm
Which is the better option? Or perhaps it's not a matter of "better" option, but just, which one would save more innocent lives?
Take all guns away from people. Those few individuals who intent on harming others will nevertheless somehow get their hands on a weapon and use it among people who have no means of defense.
Give guns to the people (who wish to carry one). Will more individuals be tempted to hurt others? Or will the people be able to take down the individual(s) who would harm others sooner before the innocent are killed or wounded. Without proper education however, that would mean more guns in houses with children who may be curious and careless.
I imagine more could be added to both of these options.
How do you feel about weapons, the right to bear arms and how they should be treated?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:19 pm
I say we should leave things as they are. I know it's bad with what has happened this past year but if we're gonna have the discussion it really shouldn't be after these events. BUT, since it happened to kids, expect knee-jerk laws to spring up and those who are already anti-gun to get on their soap-boxes and start screeching about everything but guns. (like blaming video games and movies vs assigning responsibility to the real killer)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:32 pm
Seabook Arno I say we should leave things as they are. I know it's bad with what has happened this past year but if we're gonna have the discussion it really shouldn't be after these events. BUT, since it happened to kids, expect knee-jerk laws to spring up and those who are already anti-gun to get on their soap-boxes and start screeching about everything but guns. (like blaming video games and movies vs assigning responsibility to the real killer)
I work with a couple of people who are pro-guns. I've learned several things about them through them, including that there are people who keep guns with them for the sake of keeping the law that allows us to carry them. I never realized you could legally carry one with the right permit pretty much anywhere except for government buildings and a few other places.
I should add that as an option. Keep things as they are.
I've been thinking on this a lot and don't really know how I feel about it yet. I like guns, but you can't expect everybody who owns one to be responsible or have sound intentions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 3:49 pm
Well Hawaii has one of the strictest gun laws in the country... i know only a handful of people that actually own one and i don't know anyone that carries it around on their person. I believe there's a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
I've always been anti-gun myself only cuz I'm not comfortable around them, don't know anyone that carries one, and never plan on getting one everrr myself.
Also considering the horrible events that have happened recently i can't imagine that owning a gun would have helped protect against any of the situations at all anyways.
But these are just my personal opinions. I fully believe that the crazies that would do something like this would do so with or without a law. Even if they couldnt get hold of a gun, it'd be something else. So i don't think any change in laws would have any effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2012 4:02 pm
-Elie- Well Hawaii has one of the strictest gun laws in the country... i know only a handful of people that actually own one and i don't know anyone that carries it around on their person. I believe there's a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I've always been anti-gun myself only cuz I'm not comfortable around them, don't know anyone that carries one, and never plan on getting one everrr myself. Also considering the horrible events that have happened recently i can't imagine that owning a gun would have helped protect against any of the situations at all anyways. But these are just my personal opinions. I fully believe that the crazies that would do something like this would do so with or without a law. Even if they couldnt get hold of a gun, it'd be something else. So i don't think any change in laws would have any effect.
I used to feel the very same way. I wanted nothing to do with them. I used to not want anyone to have one, with exception to authority.
That's also another question I've thought about - If someone had a gun on them, they might or might not have been able to make a difference. Even if some innocent people might have gotten shot, perhaps a potential more could have been saved if the attacker were taken down at some point by someone with a concealed weapon.
Make sense? I keep thinking about this, and it bugs me. It's just one of those decisions I can't seem to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:08 am
I'll just say the 2nd amendment was conceived and written at a time very different than how things are now. They didn't exactly envision automatic weapons that could lay waste to entire rooms of people in seconds when they wrote that.
Not to mention the ambiguity of what it even says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
People kinda leave out the entire first part of it. One could argue, are you in a militia? No? No gun for you then.
Honestly, take a step back and look at the whole thing. That was put in at a time of civil unrest. In this day and age we do not need to defend our land (we have police and military for that) and we couldn't stage a coup (because the police and military far outclass anything we the people can get our hands on).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
