Is gun ownership a right, for law abding adults?
Yes.
Side Score: 5
|
 |
No.
Side Score: 17
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely, at the moment. That does say they can own ANY gun they wish, they have the right to bear ANY arm. The Second also does NOT say they must be "mentally stable" to bear arms. The Second does not say a LOT of things. It's very vague, actually it's wide open. You could own a Howitzer as it is written. That's the problem, it MUST be written to within REASON so someone with a juvenile mentality can understand that there ARE (and must be :-), some limitations (for the safety of said juveniles … and others ;-). W … ierdos E …. xpressing A …. ggressive P …. athologies O …. n N …. ormal S …. ociety Side: Yes.
1
point
FOOL! F ... ixated O ... pposition O ... n L ... ife There is nothing wrong with Semi automatic hunting rifles to those who are not mentally juvenile. Most of us understand the difference between military weapons and hunting rifles! Democrats do not! The Left's goal is to take our guns, ONE STEP AT A TIME, just as they did in Socialist Europe. Juveniles lack the intellect to see through these Socialist gun haters. I will ask you the same question as I ask to every other gun restricting joke. Why is it that a few decades ago, when we had many semi automatic guns with almost no restrictions to purchase, were there so few mass shootings of innocent people with no connection to killer? It's OBVIOUSLY not the gun! It's the culture STUPID! I will ignore you now since none of you Lefties ever answer the simple question. Side: No.
1
point
All American United State Constitutional right depends on three things. 1. A United State. 2. Basic principle. 3. Legal Precedent. Is gun ownership a right, for law abiding adults? No, not as a United State, if it had ever been just right there would be no question in debate over gun ownership. Is gun ownership a American Constitutional right, for law abiding United State adults? Yes, The basic principle in Preamble of American constitution makes a call on all common defense to the general welfare as a united state, including gun. The 2nd Amendment then goes into a 2nd basic principle a militia with a burden of bearing arms is a peaceful assembly. The Amory can be independent and not held in United State. Yes a mentally stable requirement as condition of a person can be a influence on a right to bear arm, however the professional must be able to demonstrate an ability to preserve American United state Constitution in order to take away the burden of anyone else. A state issued license in not enough. Keep in mind this also means a Medical Doctor who is to determine any mental perforce as condition shall be responsible for continual demonstration of preserving American United State Constitution. Then, No, Abiding by law is not required only, a person must preserve united State, and Constitution which is detailing a law must be legal in its use of basic principle and legal precedent both. ""Note"" Interpretations in all constitution is limited by basic principle not any enquired Knowledge as a united state. Side: No.
Very few people in the U.S. want gun ownership to be illegal. "The right to bear arms" is a right … no question. BUT. The 2nd Amendment was written when the best weapon available was a Musket. Single shot, takes about a minute for an EXPERT to reload. The writers could not IMAGINE a weapon shooting at a rate of over a thousand rounds a minute, a bullet so fast that it tumbles through a body when it hits, causing often irreparable damage even if it's not a direct hit on a vital. 90% of Americans, 80-90% of NRA members WANT BACKGROUND CHECKS! Moscow Mitch and Wayne Lapierre DON'T. That's NOT a "United State"! The longer they fight this "reasonable" action, the more determined "the people" are going to get! We have the right to bear arms … at the moment. We DO NOT NEED the right to bear assault weapons. You can't "hunt" with them … and be a "sportsman"! You're not likely to use them for self defense, you're apt to kill your family, neighbors or anyone else in the vicinity. If you need 30-50-150 rounds to stop an attacker, you're in a war, not defending yourself! The Constitution was written to be modified "to create a more perfect union", It's NOT chiseled in stone! It's NOT a tool to be used by a handful of people to GET THEIR WAY, it's meant to be voted on. We HAVE a "well regulated militia" It's called the National Guard. Local AMERICANS that would not allow a tyrannical government to take over their families welfare OR destroy the Constitution! We NEED to amend the 2nd, we NEED to bring it up to date. Only "mentally ill" people (like outlaw :-), would not want that! Side: Yes.
|
"For law abiding adults". Obviously, yes. But people are only law abiding adults until they break the law. And criminals are only people who used to be law abiding adults, until they broke the law. Your question is fucking stupid. The question you should be asking is: should every cunt and his uncle be able to buy a gun. The answer is no. Side: No.
YES. The most idiotic argument out there is a bad guy with a gun could be stopped with a good guy with a gun. How many stories do we hear about someone getting pissed over something stupid like a parking spot or road rage and then they haul off and shoot someone for it? Before that crime happened and that ego was threatened, that person probably thought of themselves as a law abiding good guy with a gun. And most likely they were until something happened that triggered them and now they are a criminal over something stupid and fleeting. In the meantime the families are affected and someone is either injured or dead. Side: No.
1
point
Life is not a right. Guns are not responsible for death as united state. Even one person who has designed and built a new type gun admitting their gun was built to kill is not proving a united state.The key point made is a self-incrimination "their." Design improves an abuse or second, third, forth, and etc...condition as legal precedent. Side: Yes.
0
points
|
