I was reading another thread that touched on this topic, but why not devote a full thread to it.

So what do you guys think? Should there be total gun control, limited, or no control at all? And please if you say something use facts to back it up.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people. ;D

Gun's don't kill people, wives that come home early do

With guns!!!

And overweight people eat with forks. Does taking a fork away make then full?

Hey Tobias, let me ask a question. Do you believe that citizens have an absolute right to bear arms? Arms of any kind?

it's not the object, but the intent behind the object. should we make knives illegal? axes? bats? pens? ....?

It dont matter if your a man or a woman,Gun Control is hitting what you aim at and being smart enuff to know rite from wrong.People do kill people not the gun,its just a tool,like a hammer or plyers and it wont matter if the law says no guns for you,criminals will always have them or some form of wepons.You can have my guns when you pry them out of my dead hands!

when we disarm the honest citizens, is that not a govt guarantee for the criminals that the good guys are disarmed? CMON.
Every time gun control has been strengthened, the crime rate has risen. EVERY TIME. only your enemy would care how many or what kind of weapons you may have.

Who said... " for the first time we have full Gun control. the streets will be safer, our police more effective and the world will follow our lead into the future."




Adolph Hitler 1938

No. Ordinary people should not get grenades or rocket launchers. I support the history checks that we have in place and believe we should enforce them as much as posslible.

Now that being said I think that people should be able to have the weapons they need to protect themselve and their family. These include but are not limited to handguns, shotguns, and rifles.

Very good question and topic for discussion. Maybe you could answer my question above before we continue.

And by the way I do beleive we have the right to bear arms aspecialy to defend myself and family.If you were to try and harm my family,yes I would shoot you,ifn my sister didnt do it first.And I didnt say kill you,just shoot you.Rock salt douse wounders for a persons attitude

your question has been answered by others.

now in my opinion, i think there are few things the public should be restricted from. it's not often the law abiding citizens commit crimes with fire arms. gun laws only effect the public who obeys the law

Now that sounds very reasonable to me. But in the same breath, you are denying arms to citizens. Where do we draw the line? And does the Constitution allow us to draw the line?

you don't really even have to believe it, we are granted that right in our constitution

Well thats the trouble with the contitution you never know what they mean by looking at the text, so I try to look for the context. The context of The Bill of Rights is one of protection. If you take your ideas from that point of view it makes things easier to see distinctions. So if The Bill of Rights is meant to protect people the right to bear arms could be taken to say that people have the right to defend themselves. So people have the right to bare weapons that will defend themselves and thier family. And things that are not needed to defend and, and are more useful in attack are not governed by the right to bare arms.

So thats my thinking of the second amendment.

Interesting and well reasoned Tobias. The only issue I see with that is the first part of the 2nd Amendment. Here's the whole text:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Clearly, the right to keep and bear arms is in some way tied to a well regulated militia. So what exactly is meant by a "well regulated militia"?

Well the founders meant each state to be individual and that each state would raise its own army, unless in the event of national security. Well in today's world it is clear that there is no such thing anymore. So the melitias turned into each states national reserve. The point of being able to have weapons was so that anyone could join the state malita and it would not cost alot to arm it. Plus people would be able to defend themselves. At least thats my understanding of it.

simple to control

RULES

#1 NEVER pull gun to scare

#2 PULL GUN, PULL TRIGER @ SAME TIME

Dang where is that squirl rifle of mine and my powder horn