Should the U.S. Ban all private handguns?

Question

i have an opinion already, jsut want to stir up the pot and see if anyone can offer a reasonable explantion of the second amendment

Answer 1

Not all, but they should be strictly limited.

The only purpose for a handgun is to kill PEOPLE - you don't use it to hunt.

Answer 2

Yes I do think they should ban all private hand guns and have zero tolerance for any other kind of private weapons too.

Wendy

Answer 3

I will answer a question with a question. Should the U.S. Do away with the US Constitution?

Banning US citizens from owning handguns is just one step closer to banning the printing press and right to go to the church of your choice...

Freedom only works for those who fight to keep it.

Besides, banning guns will not help with lowering crimes with them...Just increase them.

Answer 4

No and the only explanation is.. the second amendment recognizes our right to bear arms in defense of ourselves, our families and to remove a tyrannical government if necessary.

Answer 5

No because the only ones that would turn in their guns are the good citizens.  The Crooks  would still have theirs.

Answer 6

Absolutely not.  First of all, such a ban would be blatantly unconstitutional.  The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, and the Supreme Court has recently (June 27th of this year) upheld that the intent of the framers of the Constitution was to ensure that private citizens may keep firearms for protection of their homes and families.  In order to preserve that right, the Court struck down the handgun ban in Washington, D. C.

This decision was lauded by both presidential candidates.

Secondly, there is a movement in the world today, supported by such organizations as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission, that the United States should surrender its sovereignty to the influence of global corporations and "harmonize" our laws and courts with other recently-compromised nations in the world.  This is a horribly mistaken idea, as the method of doing this is to degrade each country's laws to the lowest common denominator.  The proposed North American Union is one example of such a move, and one of the main reasons that the current administration has been destabilizing our dollar is to "harmonize" its value with the Mexican peso, making way for the complete debasement of the dollar so it can be replaced with the new fiat currency called the Amero.  

This is nothing less than an attempt to destroy the United States and Mexico and Canada as separate nations and blend us into a borderless "trading block" that would be subservient to a lowest common denominator version of European trade laws.  As a free people of an independent nation, we have the right to choose our own form of government, yet this change is being quietly implemented behind the scenes and will be forced upon us if there is insufficient resistance to it.  By maintaining our right to bear arms, and by keeping the exact number, type, and placement of those arms unknown, we are in much better position to resist this treasonous action by the criminal element that has usurped power in the US today.

Thirdly, although other nations, such as Switzerland, make it mandatory for all citizens to learn how to use and to own a firearm, many of them do not have the number of gun-related crimes that we have here in America.  It also bears noting that Switzerland has never successfully been invaded.  If the government and the media corporations were truly interested in preserving this nation and its values, why aren't they promoting studies and programming to support the appropriate, responsible use of firearms for their main, legitimate purpose, that of personal and family protection, instead of demonizing fun owners and portraying gun use as wild-west cowboy shoot-outs by cop and criminal alike?  

One reason why we have the gun crimes we have is that nowhere does one see the truth:  that every bullet fired finds a target, whether that target is intentional or not.

NOTE:  I do not, nor have I ever, owned a gun.  It is a matter of personal choice.  But I respect gun owners and do strongly support their right to bear arms.

Answer 7

No, since it provides self defense in case of the unthinkable.  The unthinkable has occurred far too often recently in places like LA during the riots and Katrina just 3 years ago.  Moreover, waiting on the average of 10 minutes for emergency response for 911 makes owning a handgun not only sensible but logical.

Answer 8

You have the right to bear arms, but the 2nd amendment doesn't say you have a right to bear handguns specifically.

I honestly think that all persons who carry or own guns should be forced to register all of them and not be allowed to transfer a gun to someone who is not registered to carry or own a gun.

I also feel that if a person needs a handgun or just wants to own one, they should have to buy a special permit and prove where the weapon is each year when they would be required to report or re-register to have it with proof of where it is

That won't stop murders, but it might slow it down a bit and if only one life is saved, then it is worth the trouble the owners have to go through.

Answer 9

Check history who took the guns then who took who?  

Answer 10

If you have a society where you can buy a gun over the counter you're going to have more gun crime, it's very simple. People treat it as a complex issue when it actually isn't.

Americans think they have greater rights than other countries, it's a lot of nonsense, you're the most dictated to and puppeted nation in the Western world, you persist in letting them do it to you because they've brainwashed you to think "freedom" is exclusive to the USA. The country of Finland enjoys more personal freedoms than the USA. Put down the flag and make your own decisions, they don't even want you to have a passport.

Answer 11

I believe we're entitled to own whatever kind of gun we want.

I'm sure you've all heard the arguments about how you can pull your personal gun before an officer can get to the scene and what not. It's true, but tired.

Also, I really don't suspect someone who owns a registered handgun to go out and commit a murder. It's those who STEAL the guns that do the murdering.

On top of that, the UK has extremely strict gun control, but they have some of the worst problems when it comes to everyday muggings and violence.

In short; I intend on having my conceiled weapons permit in the next year or two.

Answer 12

A good question for debate.  It wouldn't be constitutional. Some Americans don't understand the consequences.  They should speak to European survivors of WWII.  One of the things the n**i's did is take away people's weapons and the right to bear arms.  When all guns are registered, they are easily confiscated.  It makes it easier to take over a country, if you have no credible resistance.  Sticks and stones don't do much.

Unfortunately, America had to fight in WWI and WWII.  If the other nations were better armed personally, perhaps they could have better defended themselves without our help.

Guns are used for hunting and personal protection.  The criminals are frequently armed, aren't they?  In Texas, a homeowner can now shoot intruders without retreating.  And they are doing it.  While it seems harsh, so it breaking into a home to steal or worse.  I've included a link below.

I know a family who were all trained in gun safety and locked their guns.  One child found the key, unlocked the cabinet and shot his little brother.  The brother survived, but the family was devastated, of course.

This issue has so many sides.  I'm for private handguns.  If I balance it out, the scales tip in favor of retaining the right to bear arms.  Our forefathers knew the benefits, as they were fighting the revolution.