jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (13 posts)

Do you think USA should completely forbid gun ownership?

  1. Sara Jofre profile image76
    Sara Jofreposted 3 years ago

    Do you think USA should completely forbid gun ownership?


  2. Zelkiiro profile image96
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    Nope. There should just be fewer of them and they should be tougher to get. And really, the only guns anyone should ever really need are a pistol, a shotgun, and a hunting rifle. There is literally no need for anything else if you're not an active service member of the military on hostile ground.

    If you make guns harder to obtain, then your average Joe Schmo is going to be out of luck when he hits the last straw and decides to shoot up his workplace and/or blow his own brains out. It is absolutely no coincidence that the U.S. has both very high homicide rates and very high gun ownership statistics, so having fewer guns sitting around will only be a good thing. Statistics do not lie. You only need one, two if you're a hunter, and that's it.

    And to address the "BUT WE NED GUNZ 2 FITE DA GUBMENT" crowd, get a clue. If the government really, really wanted to invade your home and take your guns away or whatever it is you're always raving about, they're going to get them. You can do nothing to stop them. Not only will you be absolutely no match for the initial guys they send (professionally-trained trick-shooting agents vs. a self-taught wall-eyed redneck), but if you did manage to take those guys down, the government has tanks. State-of-the-art bunker-busting tanks. Thousands upon thousands of them. Sitting in a warehouse doing nothing. That they would be ecstatic to finally have a use for. You would be a sad little grease stain in a smoking crater. If the government really wanted to storm your gates, you would be powerless to stop them, because you kept voting for a higher military budget. You jingoistic chump.

  3. connorj profile image76
    connorjposted 3 years ago


    Absolutely not. Combined with my 2 gods (backwards) it is my best defence/protection from violence, robbery, or miscellaneous unfortunate events for both my family and I.  It is my weapon of choice to protect my "castle" and ensure my genes survive...

  4. lone77star profile image84
    lone77starposted 3 years ago

    Absolutely not!

    The American government has proven it cannot be trusted. It has become increasingly belligerent and tyrannical, ignoring laws, breaking laws, murdering its own citizens, assassinating citizens with drones and more.

    Let's say you outlaw guns. Then only outlaws and the outlaw government will have weapons. Those who promote the fact that they do not have guns are far more likely to have their homes invaded by thieves. Dumb!

    The Second Amendment was not for recreational use of guns; it was for protection from a tyrannical government. Guess what. That's what we have now.

    9/11 has been used as an excuse for nearly every tyrannical and violent act by the United States since then -- attacking countries that did nothing to America, killing innocent civilians in other countries against which war was never declared, shredding the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Weak-minded, cowardly Americans want protection and will do anything to get it. The dumb thing is, they're working themselves into a corner -- a prison -- and once there, they will have no way out.

    Take the recent controversy over CIA torture. Most Americans approve! They approve of the government breaking the law. Dumb! Just like Hitler in Nazi Germany, the citizens couldn't see the erosion of liberties until it was too late.

    Increasingly, America is using foreign (UN) troops to do domestic "security." Early on, it was merely drills to get people acclimated. When those foreign troops -- none of whom have sworn to defend the Constitution -- are sent against American citizens illegally, there will be nothing citizens without guns can do.

    That's the logic of it.

    Now, beyond logic, I would not recommend people giving up guns if they desire to keep them, but I would recommend they use the teachings of Christ, instead.

    First of all, awareness is crucial. You have to be aware of the tyranny and how the psychopaths in power are using it against you. But then you have to stop resisting evil and turn the other cheek. You have to love others as if they were yourself -- even your enemies. This is millions of times more powerful than any physical weapon (nukes included).

    Bottom Line: Let people keep their guns. Recommend training for every citizen in skillful use of guns. Educate all citizens in history and the current tyranny. But also educate them in the spiritual approach. A time is coming when any physical approach will only result in suffering.

  5. Jack Burton profile image82
    Jack Burtonposted 3 years ago

    A state where only the police and military are supposed to have firearms is known simply as a "police state." Let's ask the good folk of the former Soviet Union how they felt about living in one.

    1. Robert the Bruce profile image60
      Robert the Bruceposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      At least you and I can agree on this, Jack.

  6. mikejhca profile image93
    mikejhcaposted 3 years ago

    The government is supposed to do what the citizens want. The USA should not completely forbid gun ownership unless that is what most of the people that live there want. It seems to me like they really like their guns. So I don't see that happening. I do think they should take steps to try to fix some of the problems they are having. Problems should be fixed so they don't get worse.

    Learn from tragedies or they will be repeated over and over again. That is my view. I live in Canada. Recent changes in the driving laws have saved a lot of lives. I don't keep hearing about teenagers getting killed in car accidents every week.

    1. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I believe that mike here is advocating "mob rule."  This is all you need to know about Canada's concept of "freedom." http://tinyurl.com/kkusoko

    2. Robert the Bruce profile image60
      Robert the Bruceposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Jack, I just read the article you linked to and that is nuts! Denying people the freedom to do what's necessary to defend themselves is denial of a basic human right in my book. Self-preservation/defense is a right, not a privilege.

    3. mikejhca profile image93
      mikejhcaposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I just read the article. Self defense is a right. The law denies Canadian's the right to carry weapons for the purpose of hurting other people. Canada has less crime it is a much safer place than the US because of our laws.

    4. Jack Burton profile image82
      Jack Burtonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Canada denies the rights of it's subjects for self defense,period. I wasn't aware that any country had the "right" to hurt other people  for it's citizens. Inside a prison cell is "safe" if you want to live that way.

    5. Robert the Bruce profile image60
      Robert the Bruceposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Mike, forbidding the use of objects for self-defense is a crime against the people and the best this guy says is to get a bodyguard!? By forbidding weapons, Canada has basically said, "If you are not physically strong enough, then %$#@ you."

  7. rclinton5280 profile image75
    rclinton5280posted 3 years ago

    Maybe in Canada, but never in America. They'd have to change the entire foundation for this nation to do that, and I highly doubt that will happen without some major turmoil. The freedom to bear arms has been in the books ever since this nation's inception, and it won't be going anywhere anytime soon. Besides, the only thing that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will do is leave the crooks with all the firepower and the honest people defenseless.