The Right to Bear Arms, necesarry?
Becuase the United States has, in my humble opinion, lost many of its absolutes, there are alot of twisted "laws" and "rights" that only pull the country down. One "right" in particular is the "Right to Bear Arms". Personally I think its just stupid to allow civillians to carry weapons, because that's just asking for some angry person to go postal. From the many school shootings to domestic violience that have plauged the U.S of A in recent years, I think its time to face the facts: giving civillians weapons is a stupid idea. Sure the people want to defend themselves, but giving them guns only fuels more need to "defend". What I am saying is that the "Right to Bear Arms" should not be a right and the "defending" should be left to the professionals (police, military, etc.).
Yes, to defend ourselves.
Side Score: 4
|
 |
No, it only creates criminals.
Side Score: 5
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
Sure, America is obsessed with right to bear arms, what does that really mean anyway? Does it mean that I have the right to own nuclear weapons or a gun? Well, the government thinks no and yes. If Congress overturned the 2nd Amendment, there would be mass chaos and anarchy. Side: Yes, to defend ourselves.
|
No it isn't. It was meant for the purpose of local malitias. But we have those now, they're called cops and National Guard. They didn't have those in abundance back then. They also used muskets back then, not semi-automatics that can kill literally dozens of people in seconds. So the times have changed. Gun proponents are completely brain washed. They've let the NRA convince them they are safer if they carry a gun. That's ridiculous. More people die in accidental shootings than in purposeful ones. As for "well criminals will still get guns." That's a logical fallacy when applied to whether they should be legal to get. 1. You're not dirty harry, and if a blood or crip or some deranged killer wants your life they'll take it before you can draw your six shooter cowboy. 2. Instead of making them legal for everyone who thinks they are quick draw McGraw, fine gun companies when it is found that their gun was used in a crime. Mess with their bottom line and you would be amazed how quickly criminals won't be able to magically get guns anymore. All of that said, I have no problem with Pobunk Missouri pop. 3000 allowing citizens to have hunting rifles. However, the people of Pobunk Missouri (and the NRA) should not be allowed to say that every gangbanger in S. Chicago should be allowed to pick up a gun at the corner store simply because in the 1700's the founders weren't fortune tellers and didn't know how far the technology would go with firearms. I love how gun sellers have convinced people that live somewhere else entirely that they need to get all crazy when the majority in a different area says they want guns to be illegal. You guys are suckers. Side: No, it only creates criminals.
The right to bear arms declared by the seccond amendment is not what you think. It actualy reffers to the old militia of the states right to bear arms in a civilian atmosphere. When the government declared the civilian right to bear arms thought of today, crime rates drop little more than 2%, but in a matter of years, crime rates increased by almost 8%, worse off than before. Side: No, it only creates criminals.
1
point
|
