The Fight Over Gun Control

Ive got to say that i agreee with Drew Diligence on this one. OK so the problem has arisen from an out of date piece of legislation but it still cant be adhered to and the high rate of gun crime continue. Ban all firearms. If anyone is caught in possesion of a firearm its a mandatory 5 year sentence and if the gun is loaded then you should be up on attempted murder charges. What else is a gun used for?

The point of the essay, which I fear you have overlooked, was not to say that a plethora of gun toting maniacs is okay, but to raise awareness of the causes, and take evasive maneuvers.

Drew, don\’t quote the first amendment as a weapon against my argument without using the WHOLE amendment. True, the amendment states life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it includes FOR ALL people, not just a selective few. For a gun owner, recreational use of a fire-arm does follow under the catagory of \’pursuit of happiness\’.

I wanted to bring up the point that it isn\’t the armed populace responsible for these murders. Its the emotionally unstable that are to blame for these actions. If you research the matter, you will find that Seung-Hui Cho had a history of severe anxiety disorder, and was known for stalking girls.

The columbine kids had a known history of violence, and there was a police investigation launched a few years before where the students made death threats, listed weapons collected, and gave instructions to make bombs. They believe that violent video games and movies (Doom in particular), and their social clique were key causes.

As says the Second Amendment, \”Every able bodied person\” has the right to bear arms. We need to change the meaning of the amendment, not eliminate it. The definition of able bodied person should include mental, physical, and financial stability. I.E. you wouldn\’t give a gun to someone with a history of depression, and you wouldn\’t give a gun to someone without a stable job. The solution is not taking them away (which is impossible) but becoming more selective about who gets them.

\”Like every other gun nut you seem to find logic in the illogical\” Drew, be reasonable. You have no idea where I am, what my bias may be, or if I even own a gun.

I do NOT own a gun. I shot one once when I was little. Accusations and hasty generalizations are not a good basis for an argument, and name calling is not so helpful either. I am still open to persuasion (I came in to the essay undecided on where I stood).

Dan, guns are for killing. that was their purpose when they were invented, and that is what they are used for now. The general population uses weapons as a form of self defense (a scare tactic to ensure safety at home) while others use them for HUNTING. The use of long arms is mainly to shoot large game, in which the hunter will convert the kill into food for him/her and his/her family, as is required by the state (meaning they should not let the game go to waste).

Guns don\’t kill people. People kill people. A gun is just an extension of the persons wishes, and a means of accomplishing them.

Two of the biggest massacres in school history could have been avoided, but weren\’t, and I blame lax gun control and inforcement.

The thing about banning guns is this: in order for power to remain with the people, by the people, and for the people, it is necessary for them to have some control. Take that away, and the government can become tainted. We are still a young nation, so we have not experienced true tyranny, but when the government has total power over the people, such events are more likely to happen. the people have the right to bear arms and to vote, both of which are what ensures this nation runs as an uncorrupted democracy.

I CANT EVEN READ THIS GARBAGE, HAVE FUN IN YOUR FANTASY LAND ON THE INTERNET FUELED BY HOPES, DREAMS, LOLLY POPS AND GUM DROPS.