2nd Ammendment Rights: Should Guns Be Banned?

With the recent wave of sniper attacks, school shootings, and continous terrorism threats, shoud the constatution be ammended to ban guns?

I’m opening the floor to everyone. I know there more to this topic than meets the eye, so there’s a clear floor.


I am not a fan of guns by any means, but banning guns is going to cause more trouble than leaving them…

There is no way you can find every single gun in this country and take it away from them. Basically, the police would have to go door to door and rip everyone’s house apart looking for guns…

Also, if you took guns away from people, you know the Black Market will make a fortune smuggling in guns from the underground. Anyway, even if by some slight chance that they take every gun out of this country you should think about this: If a frustrated man who had his gun taken away from him gets a new gun from the black market goes on a shooting rampage, well you know what happens next…

Banning guns in the United States would be a win for the Black Market

*Originally posted by D.J. Fluck *
**Banning guns in the United States would be a win for the Black Market **

And the black market supports drugs, and, as the propaganda goes, drugs support terrorism.

We’d be doing the opposite of our intentions.

Just another reason to take away our rights. To date, we’ve lost the 4th ammendment, 5th ammendment (somewhat), and now possibly the 2nd ammendment.

Hmmmm… how about let’s just sell the Bill of Rights to the government for $1 while we can still make a profit on it?

Hey you only lose your rights if you let them.:stuck_out_tongue:

The mere act of owning a gun harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties.

Guns are inanimate objects, they can not act by themself. Put the responsibility for the action where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. When a gun owner is responsible and uses their gun safely, no harm, no crime. When a gun owner is irresponsible and uses their gun to commit a crime, hold them responsible and punsih them severly for imparing the rights of another.

A gun dosn’t commit a crime, a person does.

As for drug money supporting terrorism, that is not propaganda. The propaganda is the spin put on it. The government’s “Every peaceful recreational user helped pay to crash a plane into the WTC” or the “Prohibition makes prices artificially high, making it lucrative to criminals”

Take a lession from prohibition, both alcohol and drugs.
In both cases, once banned, use increassed and the price skyrocketed. Turf wars and violence were brought by those selling them to protect their profits.

In both cases, all laws designed to prevent people from having them failed. Banning guns will not stop gun ownership.

A quote from a great American statesman, patriot and lover of freedom comes to mind.

“Those who give up essential liberty, to preserve a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
~Benjamin Franklin

That rings just as true today as it did 200 years ago.


Guns in many ways should and shouldn’t be banned. They should b/c there are many “accidental” deaths that happen b/c of them. the reason why they shouldn’t is b/c guns is the main use of protection for police, and other high level protection services. as for personal ownership. u should be required to have a valid license to carry a gun in your home. no license no gun. im not a big fan of guns either, but they are useful when used correctly. the sniper in washington is a perfect example of why the guns should be taken away. hes a nut case and must be stopped before another inncoent person is killed by his stupidity

I’m going to have to vote yes, but I m both ways on the idea:

  1)There is no place for guns in our modern society. They are are not effective in self-defense, and they never cause any good when someone yeilds them, for whatever reason. 

(The only time they are effective is in law enforcement.)

  2)Can they be banned, no, banning would cause more harm than good. Between the money on the black market, and the psycological factor of them being a forbidden item (like with drugs), makes them desierable to the ignorant.

Like in previous posts in this thread I am in limbo when it comes to whether or not guns should be banned. If guns were banned it would be sort of like a Fahrenheit 451 thing going on. There would be no way of knowing who does and who doesn’t have a gun so it would just be waisting more tax money by going around searching for them all.

Personally I dont think all guns should be banned. However I think that there needs to be more gun training, as well as education for every student how to disarm and make a gun safe should you come across it. Guns will not just vanish when you wish for them to…so banning them all together would be an ineffective solution. However banning semiautomatics…that I dont think would be a horrible thing to do, because semiautomatics are convertable into full automatics. Then again…I did my senior project on the topic, and actually talked to both sides. The people against the gun restrictions made some very good points along the lines of what needs to be done is more training, not taking them out of hands and making them forbidden fruit

It would be rather counterpruductive to ban all guns in the country, the biggest example being the police departments. If all guns were banned, it is true that black market sales would be exponentially increased. With illegal guns on the streets, if legal guns were banned, would an officer armed with a nightstick and a slingshot stand a chance against a gun wielding shoplifter? While I in no way promote the use of guns as a solution to any situation, i do believe there are too many conflicting and different opinions floating around to easily come up with a solution to the problem. There are those who say to ban guns violates the freedoms this country is based on, while others insist less guns=less death. I agree with most in saying firearm education should be implemented, although there’s no guarantee that even with proper training, a gun can’t and won’t be turned on another human at any given time, for any given reason.

Just my two and a half of a haypenny cents.

Well actually the seconed amendment only protects your rights to have a gun to defend your country. Gun activists try and use that to say that the US shouldn’t pass strict gun laws but that is never what the 2nd amendment was for. I don’t think we should ban guns but we should pass good laws.

*Originally posted by wysiswyg *
**Hey you only lose your rights if you let them.:stuck_out_tongue: **

Yeah, but if we have no guns how can we protect our rights?

No, I’m not implying that we immediately resort to violence. But in the past, situations have arisen where the only solution is to fight (WWII/Civil War/American Revolution/etc).

“Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.”

*Originally posted by wysiswyg *
**Well actually the seconed amendment only protects your rights to have a gun to defend your country. Gun activists try and use that to say that the US shouldn’t pass strict gun laws but that is never what the 2nd amendment was for. I don’t think we should ban guns but we should pass good laws. **

Our nation stands for the rights of the individual. If our rights are being taken away, then isn’t our nation, and its duties to protect these rights, being comprimised? A nation with little or no rights doesn’t sound like America to me. Therefore, we must defend our nation and therefore our rights.

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.

Well actually I never said we should ban guns but it is a fact that the framers of the us constitution were influenced by the revolutionary war. You can tell when they made it up that they were living in a differnt time frame than we do today. Come on when is the last time you had a court case deal with the third amendment. I wouldn’t mind a national database of gun markings for each gun and who buys them. It would be very easy to do.

74% to 17% to 9%… It’s refreshing to see…

Personally, I am not a big fan of guns. I have seen numerous shootings during my EMT internship in the inner city part of LA and see all the bad they can do. they destroy lives and terrorrize people.

If you make owning a gun a criminal offense then only criminals will own guns: That might seem self-obvious but it is the truth.
That said i do not agree with banning guns for several reasons.
Many people collect guns for fun. Additionally people rely on guns for protection especially in wildland-urban interface areas where they might encounter dangerous wildlife.

If you outlaw guns a black market will be formed: The truth about the black market is that its goods are more dangerous, more powerful, and more deadly than the alternative. The guns purchased on the black market are not your normal 9mm or 45. Instead they are often fully automatic assault rifles. there is in the United States a flourishing black market for guns and outlawing guns would only serve to expand this market with its goods being more powerful than the guns we are used to today.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people: Sure people use guns to kill other people, but knives, cars, needles, shovels, box cutters, screwdrivers, glass, baseballs bats, hockey sticks, and numerous other common items have been used to commit murders as well. It does no good to ban an object that without a user, poses no threat to anybody.

Legitimate groups use guns: Hunters, law enforcement, private security, and many other groups have a legitimate need for guns and banning guns would adversely affect those groups. How effective would the police be if they had to stop a robbery with their own hands with no gun to back them up. The criminals would still have guns but the police would be even less able to protect you.

Sure guns cause problems in a modrn society but so does everything else. Banning guns would create more problems than it solves.

My family has always stressed gun safety and proper use of firearms. Since my father was a teenager, he has owned guns for hunting and range shooting. I had my first gun when I was born (a first birthday present from my father) and have grown up with guns. My sister and I have always been encouraged to be comfortable with using them for target shooting and hunting, and have been instructed to never use them against another human unless it is a dire situation.

My parents are now divorced, and my father lives in the mountains, half an hour away from the nearest sherriffs office, and half an hour from the nearest hospital. If you call the sheriff, it takes two hours for one of the two county deputies to report. We carry a pistol with us everywhere, because there are alot of strange people that live up there.

A couple months ago, we came home from a backpacking trip in the Grand Canyon to find our house had been burglarized, and all of our rifles stolen. Good thing we still had our shotguns locked up in another gun safe…the sheriff took 3 hours to come investigate. In the mean time, we had to sit in that house, in the dark, and wait.

In cases like these, where people live out in the middle of no where, and law enforcement barely enforces, it is imperative for the people to carry guns to protect themselves and their homes. In addition to this, many people get through the year on game meat (deer, quail, pheasant, turkey, duck). These are the two examples in my life that I just thought I’d bring up. Sean_330 made some really good points :slight_smile:

I can understand the debate over how much gun ownership should be regulated, but to ban guns completely?? That just doesn’t make sense to me.

Guns don’t kill people, but it’s a hell of a lot easier to kill someone with a gun then with a stick.

-Andy A.

It’s fairly easy to kill someone with a stick don’t count it out. You could probably kill a person with a good whack to the head.

“The National Rifle Accociation says that guns don’t kill people, people do. But I think the gun helps. I think it helps, I think just standing there and going BANG!, that’s not going to kill too many people is it? You’d have to be really dodgy on the heart, BANG! BANG! BOOM! BANG! RAT-A-TAT! BANG!” - Eddie Izzard

Sure you can kill somebody with a stick, but you have to be REALLY CLOSE to them to do it.

You can’t attach a scope to a stick and make a long-range sniper-stick to whack someone in the head from 200 meters away.

You don’t see drive-by stick whacking.

I don’t think “Stop! I’ve got a STICK!” is really going to scare a criminal.

I’m sure a bank robbery wouldn’t go so well if you threatened the teller with a stick. “Give me the money, or I’ll whack you with this STICK!” or pass them a note that says “I have a STICK, and I’ll WHACK you with it if you don’t give me the money!”

Can you see the police saying “Put down the stick, and come out with you hands UP!” No!

I think a school tragedy would be avoided if two misguided students burst into a classroom weilding STICKS.

Why don’t you go try to hunt a deer with only a stick and see how you do.