Would You Give Up Your Guns To Protect American Children?

1. 71

   crazyhorsesghostposted 11 years ago

   Would You Give Up Your Guns To Protect American Children?
   
   Other than guns for hunting and pistols for protection would you have a problem with giving up all military style weapons to protect the children of America. Is there any reason to have military style weapons. Is there any reason for a military style weapon. Shouldn't they all be banned.
   
   

   replyreport
2. 61

   Superkevposted 11 years ago

   The answer is no, there is no reason to ban a rifle based on how it looks. This hysteria over the subject is ridiculous and ill informed to say the least.
   
   You want to stop another Sandy Hook? Then find a way to stop anybody from ever going crazy again. Because that is the_ONLY_way it's ever going to be prevented.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      lone77starposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Awesome answer.
      
      Too many liberties have been lost already from hysteria and knee-jerk legislation. In fact, it's a sad fact that legislators are not given any time to read legislation on which they vote.
      
      Stop the erosion of the Constitution!

      replyreport
   2. 60

      duffsmomposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      lone77star AGREED!!

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Superkevposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      a

      replyreport
3. 64

   maddotposted 11 years ago

   Not being American it's hard to understand the fervour that surrounds gun ownership in your country. Owning military style weapons just takes it to a whole new level!
   So many of you own guns and military style weapons but owning all  those weapons did not save the children of Sandy Hook school. Where were you and your guns when the children were being massacred? What good was your gun then? You have millions of them but not one of you was there using one gun to save one child!
   Often I've read  the pro-gun people saying that if anyone threatens them or their property they'll not hesitate to use their gun.
   Do you know how crazy this all sounds to those of us outside the US who live in countries that have very low gun ownership? Go crazy, put down your guns and hug your neighbour!

   replyreport
   1. 72

      lone77starposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I like your point about hugging your neighbor. Excellent.
      
      But guns don't kill people. People do. Hugs could help. Outlawing guns won't.

      replyreport
   2. 79

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What exactly is, in your opinion, the definition of a military "style" weapon?

      replyreport
4. 93

   peeplesposted 11 years ago

   "Would You Give Up Your Guns To Protect American Children?" Um, how exactly are MY guns hurting American children? Please enlighten me?

   replyreport
   1. 72

      lone77starposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Bravo, peeples! Excellent question.
      
      Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Help eliminate craziness. Show more love.
      
      But also stop taking Corporate, packaged food. All those chemicals make people crazy and ill.

      replyreport
5. 72

   lone77starposted 11 years ago

   Absolutely not!
   
   I don't own any of these weapons (at the moment), but I wouldn't want to ban any weapons simply because someone went crazy.
   
   Should we outlaw cars because someone plowed theirs into a crowd killing dozens?
   
   Duh! Don't be an idiot. Don't be a knee-jerk legislator. Don't react to someone's Problem-Reaction-Solution Hegelian dialectic.
   
   Someone loves to play our egos and is getting a kick out of stripping away the Constitution and Bill of Rights one piece at a time. It's the old boiling frog syndrome. When it becomes noticeably hot, it's too late to do anything about it. And with free speech already gone in some parts (HR 347), I think it's too hot already.
   
   We've already lost too much of the Constitution before 9/11. That treasonous event cost us far more and the American public are sitting by like dumb sheep.
   
   Think this through carefully. Guns don't kill people. People do. If someone goes crazy and really, really, really wants to take a lot of lives, they can create all kinds of lethal ways to do it without guns. Don't play into the hands of the Globalists who want to eliminate America as a threat to their plans.
   
   Ben Franklin warned us not to give up liberty for a little "security." We will deserve neither, if we do.
   
   Hint: You're being played. You're being cajoled into reacting. That's how cattle are led to the slaughter.

   replyreport
6. 66

   LandmarkWealthposted 11 years ago

   Military sytle weapons are already banned.  Contrary to media distortions, and AR15 is not a military style weapon. It has none of the functunality of a military style weapon.  It is simply designed to look like one.  My hunting rifle is more powerful than my AR15.  It's sad how easily people can be manipulated by the media...most of whom know nothing about firearms and are often protected by armed security.  And banning weapons does not protect children.  Owning weapons protects children.   Your second amendment rights are about protecting your liberty from gov't tyranny, Not hunting.   It was designed to give elected officials who might someday wish to impose a tyrannical regime pause while knowing the population they govern is armed.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      A well educated people can be justly governed, but an uneducated people will be ruled. Bravo Landmark!

      replyreport
7. 79

   Mitch Alanposted 11 years ago

   How would a law abiding citizen's loss of his/her 2nd Amendment right help save children? Would you give up your car to stop drunk driving deaths?

   replyreport
8. 60

   duffsmomposted 11 years ago

   My guns are kept safe and locked away out of the hands of criminals so taking my guns will not aid in protecting children as I have never committed nor will I ever commit a crime.
   
   The way the question is asked is akin to asking, "How often do you beat your wife?"  There is no right way answer to that question.
   
   If we say "no we will not give up our guns to save American children," we are suddenly viewed as heartless monsters.
   
   Perhaps ask "do we think that giving up our guns will protect American children?"  I honestly do not believe it will, I really don't.  I honestly believe in our right as American citizens to own firearms. The problem is when the government decides to pick and choose what parts of the constitution it will honor.  Do we trust the government to do what is right?  This administration?  But what about the next administration, or the next? 
   
   I wish the problem was simple but it is such a complex, multi-layered issue that just isn't as simple as wanting to protect our children.

   replyreport
9. 0

   Justsilvieposted 11 years ago

   Hard question to answer and as much as I hear people argue against it, and all the drama that goes with it, fact is we are they only country not at war that loses our children to gun deaths daily.
   
   We have to start somewhere! It might not be the right solution and it might take a lot of adjustments to get the kinks out and make the solution workable … but you have to start somewhere or it will be business as usual... and nothing gets done.  We are becoming world famous for sitting on our hands!

   replyreport
   1. 79

      Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Can you explain how taking the firearms, protected by the Constitution, from law abiding citizens will cut down on violence?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Justsilvieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      fact is we are they only country not at war that loses our children to gun deaths daily. Do you have a solution or is is all about your rights?

      replyreport
   3. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The fact that we have the 2nd amendment has alot to do with why we aren't at war.  We're one of the only nations on earth not to ever live under a military dictatorship. And nations like Britian have less gun violence, but more overall violence.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      AngusNzposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think landmarkwealth is maybe correct that there is more violence without guns, however the choice of visiting a relative in hospital rather than the morgue gets my vote. and the violence is still there in America just everyone involved dies!

      replyreport
   5. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The history of the worlds greatest atrocities comes from gov't imposing tyranny on disarmed populations. Mao..65 million...Stalin 10 million...Hitler...6 million.  Milosivic, Franco, on and on and on...How many kids were among those millions ???

      replyreport
   6. 60

      AngusNzposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Landmarkwealth Now I absolutely agree with that, and would be a hypocrite if I even hinted that I had an answer for it. But I will say that they were removed and cultural issues play a big part.  The problem is human escalation, eg the cold war.

      replyreport
   7. 61

      Superkevposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      @justsilvie
      
      If you really believe we are the only country not at war that loses kids to guns daily --As you put it.
      
      You don't get out much.
      
      Check out the slums of Rio de Janeiro if you need an example.

      replyreport
   8. 60

      AngusNzposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Imagine if there was not a common level of education in America? then there would be trouble, thank whatever for education the way out of oppression.

      replyreport
   9. 0

      Justsilvieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Seems like some of you are not interested in any solutions just the same far right rhetoric and Paranoia I have heard for years. Comparing this country to Rio says even more. Gotta go and watch the news... They freed the 5 year old hostage today.

      replyreport
   10. 61

       Superkevposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       You're the one that just seemed to want to make up your own little 'factoid', not me. I simply pointed out that what you wrote was patently false.
       
       Try a little less hysteria and hyperbole next time maybe.

       replyreport
   11. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       There is a simple solution.  Get rid of gun free zones so teachers like my wife are not sitting ducks anymore.

       replyreport
   12. 0

       Justsilvieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       LandmarkWealth, do we arm our teachers? The same group that says we need ALL guns seem to be  same group that screams we need more budget cuts. Another words, get rid of the police and arm the public. very scary!

       replyreport
   13. 61

       Superkevposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       If you want to know why states, counties and cities are going bankrupt and having to cut services, look no further than the neophyte residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave and his sycophants.
       
       If a teacher wants to be armed, they should have that option.

       replyreport
10. 60

    AngusNzposted 11 years ago

    It is true that Guns do not kill people, people do, and it is more a reflection of society as to why there are people who commit such atrocities, however without the availability of weapons it is much more difficult to commit the crime. It is a lot more difficult running around trying to stab people with a kitchen knife, chances are somebody will subdue you. (just throw lots of chairs at them). The availability of the weapon makes it easier for the crime to be committed, it is beyond any doubt that if there are less weapons then there is going to be less death. Children adults and all life is absolutely safer in an environment without weapons of murder. BUT you will still get murder that is a human frailty and creating a happier more stable society is the only way to reduce crime.
    As an aside the number of cars are reduced in many places where there is a large pedestrian presence in order to protect and remove any chance of injury, so there are regulations for car use to protect life.
    I will also add though that I see no starting point to reducing weapons in america, law abiding citizens will follow the regulations and leave themselves vulnerable to criminals, hunters and anybody not willing to give up their weapons so essentially unless you could remove all of the weapons at once, no reduction will ever occur.

    replyreport
11. 59

    ib radmastersposted 11 years ago

    How in the world would that question have an answer. In what ways would giving up a weapon protect American children?

    replyreport
12. 61

    Brandi Cooperposted 11 years ago

    It isn't so much about giving up guns as it is about agreeing to sensible gun control. Banning military-style weapons shouldn't be such a big deal, considering civilians have no need for military-style weapons (or they shouldn't if they're doing what they're supposed to be doing).
    
    Unfortunately, we live in a country whose mentality is "me! me! me!" and "I do what I want, when I want, and no one can tell me otherwise!". The United States is a collective of grabby, greedy, selfish people who are so quick to thrust cries for "freedom!" and "liberty!" in your face, that they aren't willing to do the research and look at the world around them to see the reality of their situation. Americans want what they want, they don't care about whether they need it or not (that's irrelevant, just look at how rampant obesity is).  No civilian needs any sort of weapon with an "assault" label. For those people who seem to think that more guns will solve gun violence, just look at the shooting in Texas, where a SEAL sniper and his military friend were gunned down at a gun range - they both had access to guns and were highly, highly trained in how to use them and yet, that didn't stop them from preventing their deaths.
    
    Would I give up the opportunity to buy an assault weapon if it meant other mentally unstable people ALSO wouldn't be able to go purchase one? Yes. Because I understand how the world works and I'm not selfish and greedy.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Justsilvieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Words of wisdom once again. You said it very well!

       replyreport
    2. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Military style weapons are already banned.  An AR15 is not a military weapon in any way shape or form. A .30-06 hunting rifle is more powerful than an AR-15 or any of the carbine models.  The military uses fully automatic firearms.

       replyreport
13. 79

    jlparkposted 11 years ago

    I also come from a country where we look upon America's insistence of owning a gun.  Do you know who has a worse record for gun related deaths and injury per capita between USA and NZ? Easy - USA.
    
    Owning a gun for protection makes a little sense.  Yet, you only own one to protect yourself from someone else WITH one. Bit of an oxymoron, don't you think.
    
    However, onto the answer at hand - yes, I would. Because if the only people who had guns were the military fighting overseas or to protect my country, police, farmers and hunters with licences then we're all safer. Oh, and guess what - thats about all who own them here - there is one accessible to myself when I am staying with 2 particular members of my family - one owns a possum hunting rifle, the other owns several different rifles for his hunting hobby. Both have licences and have had to have a statement of character and a background check just to get the licence.
    
    BUT it will not solve the Sandy Hook etc problem.  THAT my friends is up to you - teach your children to be good, upstanding citizens. To understand that people are different, and that making fun of them is mean, and nasty - and that it affects people in some very distressing ways. It may seem fun to you at the time, (add child's name), but it hurts a person in ways that may not be able to be fixed.
    (and before anyone gets at me - this is the ONLY time I would offer my opinion on raising your children without being asked - right here, on HP, in this question...)
    
    Bullying is the reason most of these school shootings happen - we stop bullying and we are part way there.
    
    However, a little more control over guns can't hurt either.

    replyreport
14. 71

    mattheosposted 11 years ago

    First of all, my guns are hurting no one's kids.
    
    Second, can you define what a "military style" weapon is? I mean other than meaning "scary-looking" rifles? What caliber makes a weapon "military" - what range, what muzzle velocity? The only military characteristic of the weapons being considered are cosmetic - stocks, rails, bayonet mounts, etc....that's about as ridiculous as banning "sports cars" - and defining them as anything with red paint!
    
    Finally, the right to keep and bear arms is something that cannot be infringed...meaning that any time the state or federal government gets involved in this issue, it's a violation of the constitution. Now, if you're ok with the government doing that - then be ready to sign away more of your rights. Have you ever known our government to restrain itself?
    
    So if you're willing to lay down a right that you don't agree with, be ready to give up the rest too. What if our government decided that some religious beliefs were hateful and should be outlawed? (oh wait...when did that happen?) Or what if we suspended the first amendment - free speech - when what's being said it's offensive or harmful to someone? What if that someone was...gasp!...a child? Should our rights give way to the "common good?"
    
    I'm sorry, but this is the same path that so many countries have taken before. Without our constitution, we're no different than any other nation...

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Well stated...thank you for the voice of reason and Constitutionality...

       replyreport
15. 73

    Marisaupaposted 11 years ago

    The Founding Fathers of the United States feared the frivolous nature of the masses.  It was an ever present worry for them that one day an individual or group of individuals with populist zeal could sway the public to go astray.  This is one of the reasons why the electoral college was put into place.
    
    As great as their fear of the swayable masses was, however, their  fear of a tyrannical government one day upending the very pillars of freedom that they so hard fought to obtain was even greater.
    
    The primary purpose of the Second Amendment is not to facilitate hunting, it is not even to offer self-protection.  True, those were collateral points of reasoning for its creation, but the primary purpose was to ensure that those who govern can always be laid in check by the governed.  It is the fundamental purpose for the Second Amendment's existence.  It is a bold and direct assertion of the supremacy of the governed over those who govern them.  This is one of the unique and most beautiful things about the United States.
    
    To attempt to seize advantage of individual human tragedies such as school shootings to water down the purpose and value of the Second Amendment is despicable.
    
    To continually eat away at your most fundamental of rights in response to social ills which have other underlying causes is a grave mistake.  I am not from the U.S.  and yet I understand this.  How could your own citizens be so willing to diminish the most important piece of enumerated legislation which provides a de facto guarantee of the supremacy of the people over the government?
    
    You are the only nation on earth that currently has that inscribed as a part of their Constitution.  I envy you for that.  Please, do not allow it to be absconded from you by those so pathetic so as to feast off the fervor of a human tragedy to advance their own misguided agendas.

    replyreport
    1. 79

       Mitch Alanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I wish many of my fellow citizens understood that which you have so concisely expressed.

       replyreport