Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of v

1. 78

   flacoinohioposted 11 years ago

   Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?
   
   This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates.  Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and effort, not mention millions of dollars protecting the Second Amendment.  If the anti-gun movement were equally proactive the Second Amendment would have already been modified to reflect more modern issues.  Individual States have sat down with both pro and anti-gun groups to modify State gun laws to include Conceal and Carry legislation and criteria, why is it this cannot be done on the Federal level?
   
   

   report
2. 0

   JThomp42posted 11 years ago

   No, Then we will have a situation like in Mexico. All of the criminals will get guns illegally and law abiding citizens will be the one's to suffer.

   report
   1. 85

      Express10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Again, I must agree with you wholeheartedly. I had to go off on a rant on this one.

      report
   2. 0

      JThomp42posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you Express.

      report
   3. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Please watch this short Youtube video that Sarah Christina provided for our viewing pleasure - it says it all and we can expect the same thing to happen here in America if we allow our government to take away our guns.  http://youtu.be/p8RDWltHxRc

      report
3. 66

   cfinposted 11 years ago

   That is up to the people of the US to decide. There are lots of successful countries that have no such right and a much lower intentional homicide rate. Yet, there is also many countries with a greater homicide rate and no such right. Does it suit the culture of the US? Only the people of the US can determine this.
   
   I personally don't think it will make any difference. The weapons are there and the murder rate won't change either way. I live  in Wisconsin right now and my wife is from here. It scares her that people can conceal a weapon legally. We also know many people whp are not mentally capable of carrying a weapon, but they do. Even though I grew in a society where our standard police don't even require guns(it has only worked to an extent and many criminals still use guns and our special branch ops still use guns), I understand and respect the local customs. I also believe that this is not a global debate, and as I expect people to respect my culture, country and values (although nobody seems to), I will respect the 2nd amendment to the US constitution and the fact that it is one of the things that makes the USA unique.

   report
4. 91

   Georgie Loweryposted 11 years ago

   Truthfully, I'm not pro or anti-gun anything. I don't have a firearm and I don't see the need for me to own one. The problem comes in when I want to take what I believe and apply it to other people. When the majority rules, not everyone's needs or wants are represented. Changing anything on a federal level takes power away from the states and, I believe, this is something that the United States should not be doing right now.
   
   With that said, most of the weapons (automatic) that many people would like to see removed from public hands are always going to be in the possession of people who circumvent the law to obtain them. I also don't believe that any gun control laws will affect crime rates in this country at all. I can also see the point that a lot of folks make that, if their guns are taken away, they will have no way to protect themselves against people who possess firearms illegally.
   
   So - there is no easy answer to this question at all.

   report
5. 60

   nightwork4posted 11 years ago

   it would help but it won't solve the problem. obviously having a country that believes guns are needed by everyone isn't a good thing but at the same time, unless gun laws against criminals become a lot stiffer, they won't care. the media is as much to blame as guns are, if not more. a lot of countries have less guns and are a lot safer then the U.S. but that won't matter to the people who think owning guns is a right. what will matter is if these people own guns and make a mistake with them, a long prison term follows.

   report
   1. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      These countries only seem safer, until government storm troopers start kicking in their doors. It will happen and when your wife and kids look to you for protection...all they will see is you closing your eyes and wishing it away like a bad dream.

      report
   2. 79

      jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      CJ without guns nor force we have successfully retained our nuclear free borders from US and other gun happy countries ships and have not been overthrown by armed storm troopers. Try again

      report
   3. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Give it time, Jacqui, that day will come. And, whether or not it happens in New Zealand right away, it'll happen in the U.S.A. sooner than later.  I don't think anyone cares too much about the Kiwi state...not in the grand scheme of things anyway.

      report
6. 92

   ercramer36posted 11 years ago

   It will have no effect whatsoever.  Gun laws are only obeyed by law abinding citizens.  If you managed to take away all of the guns, people could still find ways to commit heinous crimes.  Much of the gun violence happens in the states or cities with the most gun control laws (ie Chicago).  The problem of violence lies are a much deeper level, there is evil in this world.  The only way to stop this type of violence is to change people's hearts through a relationship with Jesus Christ.  Chicago, for example, has tried just about everything else and the violence keeps getting worse.

   report
   1. 75

      ExpectGreatThingsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well said!

      report
   2. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Slam dunk, ercramer!!!

      report
7. 85

   Express10posted 11 years ago

   No, I do not believe that modifying the second Amendment will prevent mass or random violence. I am truly sorry for the senseless deaths that are caused by mentally ill persons no matter when or where these horrible things happen. By comparison, look at all the thugs and criminals who have guns and will rape, murder, kill, and harass until they get locked up and even after release.
   
   If we cannot control guns in the more numerous cases of thugs, criminals, and jilted lovers, how can we do so in a smaller number of cases where we have mentally ill people getting their hands on them? There have been laws for decades and people have always and will continue to break them. In my opinion it's best that sane, trained, and legal owners NOT ever give up their freedom just so that some people can delude themselves into thinking everyone is safe.
   
   I will not give up my right to own a gun and protect myself from the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of criminals that ALSO have guns. When senseless tragedies occur, the immediate reaction is to "take away" the right to guns or modify the second amendment but this is an ineffective "remedy" that will continue to be met with strong opposition.
   
   The problem is that the gun laws don't work for criminals who can obviously get their hands on them. Those who choose not to have them, that is their right. Just don't infringe upon my right to protect myself with equal power as long as I remain a sane, trained, and legal owner.
   
   Only when the gun laws actually work at keeping criminals owning/carrying them would I consider giving up my right to defend myself in kind. However, this will not likely ever happen as criminals and those who are so determined will do as they please without regard for the law and without regard for law abiding citizens.
   
   It's not about the intent when the 2nd amendment was put into place. It's about modern life in the US. The fact is that no matter what we do or don't do, we have a fair chance of crossing paths with someone who has a gun and is not law abiding. There are cases where many people have successfully defended themselves, their families, and others with the use of a gun and will continue to do so. End of rant, thanks for reading.

   report
   1. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It was my pleasure. :0)

      report
8. 67

   LandmarkWealthposted 11 years ago

   There is no law that will prevent an insane or evil person from planning to commit a crime of this magnitude.  Taking away or reducing the rights of innocent law abiding citizens to defend themselves from all of these maniacs will not help.  911 terrorists used box cutters to hijack a plane.  Tim McVeigh used fertilizer to take out a Federal building. The unabomber never fired a single bullet.  If they are devoted to hurting people they will.  There are just as many people killed each year from drunk drivers as there are from firearm related homicides.  Yet does anyone really think that bringing back prohibition will prevent this.
   
   Being married to a teacher who teaches in a low income high crime area, this has been a concern of mine for some time.  Both my wife and I are gun owners and trained in the proper use of firearms.  Yet she can not carry a weapon on her to defend herself or her students on school grounds.  She isn't even allowed to carry pepper spray.  Ultimately had the teachers been armed or even armed guards, it is likely that more lives would have been saved.  In the end the only people who obey the law are the ones who intend no harm.  You can't stop bad guys from obtaining tools of destruction.   Even if you banned the total manufacturing of weapons they'd still be made illegally just like illegal narcotics are.
   
   Additionally the history of the world in which citizens have been totally disarmed is even more violent.  The greatest acts of genocide have always been preceded by gov't first disarming their citizens so they had no way to defend themselves against a totalitarian regime. 
   
   It's always the politicians surrounded by armed security that preach to us about tougher gun laws.  They think their lives are more valuable than hours.  Their exuse is that they are public figures and entitled to greater protection because they are likely targets.  Yet these poor children were not public figures.  Nor were all the people that had to fend off violent looters in the wake of hurricanes Sandy & Katrina.  What about all the violence and looting after major earthquakes.  Or even riots that took place in LA after the Rodney King verdict.  There are any number of ways that violence is triggered. And the reality is the vast majority of gun owners are simply law abiding citizens that want to protect their families from a dangerous and unpredicable world.

   report
   1. 85

      Express10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Amen brother!

      report
   2. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Right on!!!!

      report
9. 85

   M. T. Dremerposted 11 years ago

   I think the problem with the second amendment is that it's ridiculously outdated. It came during a time were America was vulnerable and didn't have the military presence it has today. Plus, back then, firearms were bulky and carried only a few shots. Had our founding fathers known about semi-automatics the size of a pistol, they would probably have been disgusted. The hard part is figuring out how the amendment can be updated.
   
   I agree that the blame for gun violence falls on the person pulling the trigger, not the gun. But not all gun violence comes from someone intending to do evil. What if a child finds their father's gun and shoots someone? What if a civilian shoots a robber, and then a second civilian doesn't see that robber, and shoots the first civilian because they had a gun? For me, the concern is escalation. If we all have guns, then whats to stop every petty crime from turning into a blood bath? And sure, crazy people will get weapons regardless of the laws, but do we really have to make it so easy for them? It's like saying 'terrorists are going to attack us anyway, so we might as well just give them the bombs.'
   
   I'm not in favor of a gun ban, but I do think we could have better gun regulation in this country. We're an advanced democracy, there is no reason that we cant think of something that would help curb the number of gun deaths. But, the only way we're going to do that is if we can get past the whole myth that the government is a boogyman trying to take our guns away.

   report
   1. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The Germans were an advanced democracy in the 30's.  Every tyrancial regime believed they were modern for their time.  The purpose of the 2nd amendment is primarily to protect us from the Gov't. Not the other way around.

      report
   2. 85

      Efficient Adminposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You make some good points M.T. Dremer.  In my city if you want to buy a gun you are required to get a permit and also have to go through rigorous training on how to handle the gun and what all the laws are pertaining to owning a gun.

      report
   3. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      America should not have a standing military - it should be a nation of citizen soldiers. Standing armies are ALWAYS used against their own people - it's just a matter of time. Disarming America will only lead us straight into the hands of a tyrant.

      report
   4. 85

      M. T. Dremerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Just because a government wants to reduce gun deaths, doesn't mean its on the route to a tyrannical regime. And just because citizens are armed, it doesn't mean they aren't already being manipulated by the regime that sold them the guns.

      report
   5. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It's not todays Gov't you need to worry about. It's what the future brings to a disarmed population.  And Gun restictions don't reduce crime.  In fact overall violent crime is already way down in the US.   Shall we ban alcholol to stop DUI deaths.

      report
   6. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      As a result of Australia taking away guns from honest citizens, armed robberies rose 69%, assaults with guns up 28%, home invasions up 21% and gun murders rose 19%. Gun control advocates can expect the criminal element to become even more aggressive.

      report
   7. 66

      cfinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      CJ, I am not picking sides but all your stats are 100% false and were created by a one sided group. Australian crime, According to official stats has decreased but doesn't show any major change since the new legislation was introduced,

      report
   8. 0

      CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      According to government "spin" 9-11 was carried out by a couple dozen Arabs, hiding in a cave in Afghanistan. According to government "spin", Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone perpetrator in Kennedy's assassination. All governments lie to their people.

      report
   9. 67

      LandmarkWealthposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So even if you assume that there was no major change then the banning of guns in Australia did nothing.

      report
   10. 0

       CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Good point, Landmark! If we are to believe the crime statistics did not change - what was the point of confiscating the public's guns? Now, you and I both know that all kings and queens want to disarm the peasants - ever since the French Revolution.

       report
   11. 59

       smiley12posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       You say gun legislation in Australia presented no major change to crime in our society, well that's because we have never had a gun culture, and mass shootings with assault rifles have never been a reoccurring problem in our society.

       report
   12. 79

       jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Smiley - same here in New Zealand.  No gun culture - no issues.

       report
   13. 78

       flacoinohioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I watched a video FB the other day that featured Hollywood actors encouraging people "demand a plan".  The actors are then shown acting in a violent movie scene where most are using a gun to kill someone, it does make an action hero seem hypocritical

       report
10. 61

    lostdogrwdposted 11 years ago

    the common link in all these insane mass killing is the all had mental problem. putting children on kids drugs I feel really don't help the child and we as a country don't believe in helping people with mental health problem, just drug them. this country have just to much hate for on another and a State and Federal Government that kill people to. fact Government kill more people than all gang,sickness. drugs, and cigarette combine. and in other countries where there people is unarmed you read and hear about the slaughter. I just wish and pray that people have real love for one another. the killing of babies really sicken me but I know that a man did this. a man with no love for other. are we ever going to check ourselves.  maybe  when there real for for one another the guns may go way.

    report
    1. 85

       Express10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       People around these types aren't reporting these issues. The squeaky wheels get the grease. Consistently odd behavior, threatening, self-isolation, are glaring signs some choose to talk about behind others' backs rather than seek help or warn others.

       report
11. 75

    ExpectGreatThingsposted 11 years ago

    It won't help in the slightest.
    
    Remember April 19, 1995? Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people (including 19 children) and injured more than 600. No guns, just a homemade bomb.
    
    Or how about September 11, 2001? Again, no guns involved. People bent on evil will find a way to do their evil deeds.

    report
    1. 0

       CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Spot on!!!

       report
12. 85

    Efficient Adminposted 11 years ago

    If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns, and it's doubtful mass acts of violence will stop.

    report
    1. 0

       CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       True

       report
    2. 85

       Express10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Well said. Why do so many not understand this fact? Things will only get worse if lawful citizens are not allowed to protect themselves.

       report
13. 0

    CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years ago

    No...not in the least. There are already 20,000 gun laws on the books, which the government does not care to enforce. I believe they want as much anarchy as possible, so they can eventually eradicate private gun ownership completely. This will ultimately lead to America's first tyranical dictatorship.
    
    As Ben Franklin aptly put it, "Those who give up freedom for security...deserve neither freedom nor security."
    
    Look folks - it's not the honest, decent, responsible people out there that you have to worry about. I don't even care if a good man or woman owned an AK-47 assault rifle...it doesn't bother me in the least, but if sure scares the excrement out of the criminal element and a tyranical government who seeks to oppress its people.

    report
14. 86

    tamarawilhiteposted 11 years ago

    No. An evil man in China killed two dozen kids and teachers with a knife last week. The problem isn't guns - it's violent or insane people left on the streets.

    report
    1. 0

       CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Did they actually die...or did he just stab or slash a couple dozen?

       report
    2. 85

       Express10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Several are in critical condition, I hope they all survive. 22 kids were attacked. The fact is that the kids could have easily been killed by slashing wrists or throats. Considering the numbers attacked, it's a miracle none have.

       report
    3. 0

       CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I guess the Chinese had better ban all the knives in China.

       report
    4. 66

       cfinposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       No one actually died. And china is..... Well .... It's china.

       report
    5. 85

       Express10posted 11 years agoin reply to this

       "it's violent or insane people left on the streets" that is the problem. Maybe the man did not want to kill them, a slash to the throats of each would have easily done it. Knife, gun, shank, etc., it's not the tool, it's the perp that's the problem.

       report
    6. 0

       CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Yes. The problem is that there are dangerous people roaming our streets AND they have access to a lot of potential victims...like fish in a barrel. I don't care if it's movie theaters, malls, or schools...no one is there to protect these people.

       report
15. 59

    MichaelJohnMeleposted 11 years ago

    No, not at all...we don't have a gun problem...we have a people problem. No matter what laws we change...or new laws we implement...crazy people who are up to no good will still find a way to break them and cause havoc.

    report
    1. 0

       CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       "We don't have a gun problem...we have a people problem" - MJM
       
       EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

       report
    2. 59

       MichaelJohnMeleposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       @CJ Sledgehammer glad to know that I'm not the only one who thinks this.

       report
16. 79

    jlparkposted 11 years ago

    People have difficulty imagining what it would be like without the right to bear arms or concealed weapons, because they've never had to go without them.
    
    Here in New Zealand, we have very little gun crime.  We MUST have a gun licence to own a gun, and must get this from the police. This licence at least in the initial application include statements of character from at least one person of good reputation in the community.
    
    In our hunting and fishing stores, yes we sell guns - guns past a particular calibre (I think BB guns and paintball guns are free reign, but the others...not so much) need a licence.  It is difficult to get our hands on a gun at all.  They must be stored in a locked cabinet and ammunition must be kept seperately. This is in order to keep our children safe.
    
    Our police are NOT armed unless necessary - they have easy access to tasers and possibly (not a police officer...so not sure) guns in a secure safe in the boot of the patrol car.  We have an Armed Offenders Squad that is called out to armed disruptions.
    
    Sure any gun can kill people, but we do not stock nor carry assault rifles, machine guns, or other such things DESIGNED solely to KILL PEOPLE. If there are in NZ, they are usually historical or war memoriablia.  Or owned by the Army, Navy and Air Force, and police.
    
    I have no desire, nor need to carry or own a gun. I feel completely safe in my country, and secure in the thought that I'm not likely to gunned down in going about my day, because too many people own guns that have no idea how to use them, or who are out to kill people.
    
    Sure we have violent crime - one's fists can kill, as can knifes and arrows etc. Sure we've had mishaps with guns - hunters accidentally killing each other instead of deer, kids playing with daddy's gun killing accidentally another child.  And the usual - those without a gun licence getting hold of a gun and doing bad with it.
    
    So, if gun laws were tightened just a little, and assault rifles and other guns designed solely to kill - it may help. Or there may be no affect. Can it hurt to try? It's not likely to take guns away from people, but keep people from  getting their hands on them when they aren't capable of using them safely. To protect the children?
    
    I'm NOT for outlawing them.  I'm for tightening control just a little.
    Perhaps it's the benefit of living in a reasonably peaceful country.

    report
    1. 0

       CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       Yeah. And, while we are at it, let's tighten up on vehicular deaths. More people die in the United States from auto accidents than all gun related deaths combined. Perhaps the government should collect our cars instead of our guns?

       report
    2. 79

       jlparkposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       CJ - we've focused on DUI and safe driving - and guess what - road toll is decreasing. How about providing a solution, rather than supporting the problem by demeaning other's comments? Where's your solution to the issue without more control???

       report
    3. 0

       CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       What I'm trying to show is the hypocricy behind the government "gun round up". If it's about saving lives, then round up our cars, because more people die from automobiles. Their ambition is not to save lives...it's to gain control of the population.

       report
17. 45

    thomasczechposted 11 years ago

    Gun control, depending on how you interpret that statement, will not help one bit to combat gun violence. The saying is "Criminals do not obey the law" therefore they will find a way, like they do now, to get guns.
    I do firmly believe that people should be required to take a certified firearms course to get a license in order to buy guns. This is not because \i believe in gun control, it is because far too many people have guns and do not know how to safely use them and store them.
    I have many guns, of all types. Each one has a trigger lock and is stored in a gun safe separate from my ammunition.
    I also believe that people should have guns for protection and for hunting.

    report
    1. 0

       CJ Sledgehammerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

       I have no problem with that. But, I do not think any government should be treating honest and responsible gun owners like children. I don't believe in the "one size fits all" mentality they espouse. It doesn't save lives...but it does save them time.

       report