Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?

1. 81

   cindyvineposted 15 years ago

   Should guns be restricted to military, police and security guards?

   replyreport
2. 57

   JC Grifposted 15 years ago

   If you enjoy tyrrany and hate liberty and freedom than yeah strip the law-abiding citizen their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. If you take a look at some of the bills going through Congress lately, this administration with the help of unamerican politicans want just that. Also look at the crime rates of cities like Chicago, LA, New York, and Detoit where it is illegal to have a gun; they are cesspools for crime.

   replyreport
3. 38

   thinking out loudposted 15 years ago

   No, there are no guarantees that the bad guys will stop using them.  every citizen should have at their disposal the means to protect themselves, their loved ones and even yes, their property.  Disarming the public encourages a govt gone nuts to further trample on your rights. what we really need is more gun owner education.  Especially in the initial stages and early years.

   replyreport
4. 54

   HappyHerposted 15 years ago

   Absolutely not.  Our forefather's fought and died for us to have the right to bear arms and the reasons they did that is as clear and valid today as it was back then.  As my father says, "You'll pry my gun out of my cold dead fingers."  And I agree.

   replyreport
5. 60

   BP9posted 15 years ago

   No.  A right to basic defense of one's person and one's family from immenent, mortal threat is everyone's basic, HUMAN right, whether it be better locks on doors and windows, self-defense classes, or firearms training.  Besides which, it has been proven that a largely unarmed populace does not reduce violent crime or other types of crime. 
   
   That said, I also believe in gun control (NOT gun bans).  My only critique in gun control legislation is that it has to be logical, reasonable and feasible in order to enable the very defensive purpose of gun ownership.

   replyreport
6. 60

   bskinnyposted 15 years ago

   In response to Will Apse, while it is true they have fewer gun deaths... As is normally the case for gun control advocates, that is only half of the story. Do a search on stabbing deaths  in the UK. It is incredibly high. At any rate, no the guns should not be restricted to military, police, and security guards. Criminals dont follow the law anyway so who are you really hurting when you pass legislation like that.

   replyreport
7. 60

   The_Drizzleposted 15 years ago

   Absolutely not.  The 2nd Amendment gives us the reason to keep and bear arms for a reason. 
   
   But then again it also gave us checks and balances, protections against illegal search and seizure, and the much forgotten ninth and tenth amendments which reserves all other powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the people and the states, and we've all seen how those have all fallen by the wayside.  What's one more freedom down the drain, right fellas?

   replyreport
8. 59

   Toronto12posted 15 years ago

   Although I am an advicate for gun control, I don't believe guns should be restricted to military, police and security guards.  Hunting is an activity dating back to the beginning of our species.  Hunters have a right to practice the sport.
   
   As far as protecting your loved ones, I disagree that a hand gun will ever protect your family from "bad guys".  You are more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.
   
   Lastly, and this may sound like something out of 1984, civilians should have the right to bear arms.  Governments throughout history have often become too powerful and excersied their will against the people (not for them).  Having the right to bear arms, is a neccesity in order to prevent this from happening again.

   replyreport
9. 61

   14 otraposted 15 years ago

   Toronto disagrees that a handgun will ever protect your family from "bad guys".  I can personally debunk that!  When I detect an indication that I am being told what type of weapon I can or can't have, the first point I try to make is, "you weren't there". 
   The saying,"the proper tool for the proper job" is never truer than when your life is at stake.  When the "bad guys" are close enough to divert your aim, or worse yet, to take your weapon away from you, it might be too late to wish you had rethought your position on handguns.
   I asked my friend in town why she took the jack out of her trunk. She said she didn't need it unless she was going on a trip.  For me, going to town's a trip.  I'd rather not change my own tire, but like the unpleasant business of self protection, it's better to be prepared than to die in the desert waiting for someone with the right tools to come along.

   replyreport
10. 52

    guardian3351posted 15 years ago

    No mainly because it wouldn't resolve anything.  Something that usually annoys me in the whole debate on gun control is that hardly anyone ever focus on the real problem which is why are the criminals going around committing the crimes in the first place.  If one eliminated the necessity for people to commit the crimes, one would really eliminate the necessity for gun control.  Besides like some of us have noted, controlling guns isn't the same as controlling criminals or preventing criminals from developing.  If someone has crossed that line to committing crimes, rarely are they going to be stopped by mere weapon control and history has shown that it has failed time and time again and only handicaps the law abiding citizens.  Many people don't know this, but at one point martial arts was illegal in China because the robbers were very proficient in marital arts.   It didn't work though because now the robbers knew the maritial arts and had no problems learning or teaching it, and worse the civilians couldn't learn it because it was against the law.  needless to say that didn't last long.  A better question to ask would be how do you prevent criminals from believing they have to commit crimes in the first place.

    replyreport
11. 0

    comp3820posted 15 years ago

    No, for several reasons:
    1. The Second Amendment. Sorry folks, theres a Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. Period.
    2. "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." If you lived in a utopia where everyone would hand in their guns like good little kids, maybe it would work. As it is, only the good people will hand in their guns. A criminal is a criminal, get it?
    3. The deterrent factor. If you were a thief, would you be more or less likely to mug somebody if you thought they could be carrying a gun?

    replyreport
12. 0

    blueraven6posted 15 years ago

    The answer is real simple: Would you rather guns be in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to use them, or does know how to use them?
    
    The problem with those of us who do know how is we no longer think you're worth protecting.
    
    I can assure you they won't ever be abolished. Only the prices will rise.
    
    We proved that with prohibitions of alcohol. Remember that lovely time period in our history?

    replyreport
13. 49

    deb 1980posted 15 years ago

    I would like to say yes but that's not realistic. In the US the 2nd amendment gives the right to citizens to bear arms. Unfortunately it's not as regulated as maybe it should be.In fact there will be a new law in Virginia beginning July 1,2009 making it easier to obtain a concealed weapons permit. It is also written that the requirements include online courses and/or video The governor of this state is opposed to this because there is no guarantee that the  person watching the video or online is the one applying for the permit. As a society , if we pick and choose which rights should be taken away we endanger all of them being taken.

    replyreport
14. 70

    emohealerposted 15 years ago

    As a combat veteran who has no appreciation for violence or war, with a firm belief that there is always a better answer.  I would still reply, NO.  Guns should not be restricted to these 3 categories.  Why should they have guns?  Why should anyone have guns?
    
    As a gun owner with a concealed weapons permit, this answer may sound conflicted.  Guns have other purposes besides shooting people (who ever thought of them for that purpose anyway?)  I live deep in the woods in AL., when I take a walk I would rather have a pistol to keep snakes and the like away from me than a big stick.  I also deer hunt and a gun is easier for me to use than a bow and arrow. 
    
    Either we have guns or we don't, maybe the problem isn't guns or who has them, it is what they are used for and what they represent to each indivual.

    replyreport
15. 60

    junomichposted 15 years ago

    Not sure, the bad guys have guns too. But really a car his also a deadly weapon.  For that matter a lighter and a can of Aquanet will do.
    
    Gun control is much like locks on doors.  It's ment to keep the honest people honest, and unlike laws requiring to lock up guns to keep children safe.....I don't know anyone who locks up their car keys.

    replyreport
16. 56

    grmngeneralposted 15 years ago

    Think of weapons as a leverage and a neutral factor. The wielding of a weapon changes its potential for action depending on who holds it. Many people feel that it would be safe to have weapons off of the streets of the United States, but there are implications. Putting the trust of weapons into only military, police, and security officers is saying that these three somehow hold a greater power of responsibility over you, and that they can do no wrong. But the people that protect this country are not without faults, and not everyone in the service to their country walks around in shining armor.
    
    Safety is everyone's responsibility, like it or not. Just as there are safety officers on rifle ranges to ensure that you hold your weapon properly, it's your priority to ensure that you know the powers and limitations of such a destructive power and that others who misuse this power are shown the error of their ways.
    
    It is unfortunate that we cannot stop needless killing or the accidents that occur because of poor or non existent gun safety from adults, but life is without absolutes as far as human emotions and logic. People have good intentions, and some have bad intentions and both can and will find a way to go around obstacles that they find a problem.
    
    So please, buy a gun and teach others the responsibilities of wielding it. It's up to you to make a difference in the world, not in the hands of a  few people.

    replyreport
17. 0

    Hxprofposted 15 years ago

    No.  Everyone has the right to protect themselves, and guns are a legitimate means of protection-IF those with guns have been trained in handling/safety techniques.  With the right to bear arms comes the responsibility to handle those weapons responsibly.

    replyreport
18. 62

    Kebennett1posted 15 years ago

    No I do not think so. Criminals will always be able to by guns illegally. So banning the non criminals from having them simply puts us at a disadvantage. Military, police and security guards can not be everywhere, all of the time. I for example, live in an area out in the country and the closest police station is 30 miles a way. If someone comes to my home with a gun, any weapon, and threatens my family, I need to have the right to defend myself and my family. I can not wait for the police to get here, it will be too late. Good people don't commit crimes with guns. You can't stop bad people from getting them, so what would the benefit of the law be? As long as people follow basic safety rules and keep them locked away from children, I see no harm in having them.

    replyreport
19. 60

    Abe Normalposted 14 years ago

    Guns are often deemed neccessary by the Second Amendment for people who camp near grizzly bear, bicycle near cougar stomping grounds and practice white tail deer conservation (without which deer starve to death).
    
    -Abe Normal
    Bang bang, shoot shoot.

    replyreport
20. 60

    NotRushposted 14 years ago

    NO!  Besides the obvious that we should be able to protect ourselves from animals and criminals we should also be able to protect our freedom.  As Americans we have the right to bear arms no only to protect us from the things I just mentioned but against our own government.  Read some Thomas Jefferson quotes about the right to bear arms and the power of governments.  Two main reasons the founding fathers gave us that right is so we as citizens can protect against invaders but also to prevent our own government from getting to powerful.  Without the threat of revolution a government will get more powerful and controlling then America wouldn't be the land of the free anymore.

    replyreport
21. 85

    Springboardposted 14 years ago

    The Democratic People's Repuiblic of Korea—also known as North Korea—comes right off the top of my head as a place such as you described, where the people are oppressed by their government, completely dependent on said government, are isolated from the outside world, and who can in no way oppose the government, its leadership, nor defend themselves or their families against tyrannical control.
    
    The only ones in North Korea who have guns are the miltary and the police.

    replyreport
22. 0

    guidethemposted 14 years ago

    I believe the situation would improve if states required licensing to own them.  Much like a driver's licencse; minimum age, required training, testing and a demonstration of safe handling and operation. Yes, I know... much easier said than done.  Just because you can handle a PPK doesn't mean you should be able to own and operate a BMG.  Driver licenses do have vehicle categories, so just maybe this could be managed.
    
    Get caught shooting targets while drinking and you pay a price. Get caught twice, lose your gun license.
    Get caught having your 90lb wife(an unlicensed firer) fire a Desert Eagle and pay a fine.
    The mandatory training and emphasis on safe operation should lessen the number of accidents. Licensing would also help law enforcement on stops, and search and seizures. If you can't show a license, they're stolen and/or you've broken a law and the weapons are confiscated.

    replyreport
23. 62

    JonesChicagoposted 14 years ago

    No. Though many say that the Constitution states that owning a firearm is reserved to only those that are in/or are governing a Militia for the protection of America should it be attacked. That would be a false idea. Truth is that criminals care not whether the government says citizens can or can not own, posses or sue a firearm. Criminals have always and will always be able to get a gun when needed to suite their deeds.Truth is that in the cities and states where firearm ownership is allowed, crime in almost every category is down.

    replyreport
24. 78

    Jack Burtonposted 14 years ago

    Hi-Jinks sez: I have not seen or heard of a situation where a gun owner went to the aid of a crime victim.
    
    Jack replies: Stupidity is forever, but ignorance can be cured. Here is hi-jinks ignorance vaccination shot right here...
    
    http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/
    
    Thousands upon thousands of stories directly from the mainstream media, all documented, and about ordinary citizens saving their lives, their dignity, and the lives of many others through the simple use of their personal firearm.

    replyreport
25. 59

    nightwork4posted 14 years ago

    no. i'm canadian and i think it's stupid that we don't have the right to own a gun. letting just the police and military have them is not only unfair, it is the start to becoming like north korea.

    replyreport
26. 62

    Security Newsposted 13 years ago

    Some police and guards are truly malicious and may use guns to terrorize the people they are supposed to guard, therefore very important to do a background check on police and guards, especially if they are heavily armed, to ensure that they have been through intensive training on their job, and especially on the use of their weapons.

    replyreport
27. 81

    Wayne Brownposted 13 years ago

    Absolutely not...any models designed as such that you hear discussed over look some really strong points and they make assumptions which are not true.  Getting the guns out of the hands of citizens will not reduce crime, etc.  Criminally minded people do not care if it is against the law to have a gun or to use it in a crime. Guns are the sane man's last barrier against such idiots.  I don't want someone sitting outside my house thinking about breaking in knowing that I don't have a gun.  I want them to guess, to have to take a risk and maybe get their damn head blown off in the process of carrying ot their crime.  That is what we call deterrence and we need a lot more of it. WB

    replyreport
28. 60

    superryogaposted 13 years ago

    The professions which require a basic form of protection would have these weapons, however, giving up a constitutional right in trade for providing a form of control is wrong. Everyone is entitled to being armed, if not for their own protection, but for the protection of others.

    replyreport
29. 60

    bobbyarenaposted 13 years ago

    No, because in America the constitution allows lawful ownership of firearms.

    replyreport