Philadelphia Business Daily

What are three good contentions if you are debating the Private ownership of guns should not be banned?

Also do you guys believe the private ownership of guns would decrease crimes or not and why.

Public Comments

1. 1 and the only one by the way....the constitution guarantees me this right...period, end of story! Private ownership deters crime, known fact, ask the guy I shot breaking into my house last year....oh that's right you can't....he's dead!
2. 1. The Bill of Rights is designed to limit the rights and powers of the State, NOT the People. Therefore, it makes little sense that there would be an Amendment inserted saying the People can have guns, but only if they submit them to the will of the State by being part of a "well-regulated" State militia. It would the only "if/then" clause on the list. Arguing that the 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the People is, on its face, antithetical to the entire spirit of the rest of document. 2. The Amendment is grouped next to the now all-but-forgotten 3rd Amendment (just as other "related" Amendments are grouped, 4-8 and 9 & 10). Both are about the military and the 3rd clearly upholds a limitation on military rights. It therefore holds that the 2nd should most likely be read in the same light, as limiting the power and scope of the military, not the People. 3. Our entire system, and the entire Constitution is built on the premise of "checks and balances." For every position or person of power, there is another position(s) or person(s) that can counter it. The Judicial branch reigns in both the Legislative and Executive, but can be overwritten themselves with Amendments and new laws. The Executive must approve acts of Congress, yet Congress can overrule a Presidential veto, etc. I'd even say that other Amendments in the Bill of Rights uphold this same philosophy - and even codify it farther by defining the specific ways in which the People have checks over the State (since the rest of the Constitution is about State checks on itself. For example, the press keeps a check on the government via free political speech, jury trials keep checks on the courts, powers not delegated to the State remain in the hands of the People, etc). 4. Due to these other statements, it is my personal belief that the grammar of the thing has been repeatedly, mistakenly interpreted. "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." Nowadays, when people read "well-regulated Militia" they take it to mean a state-run, organized, legally backed military power. I argue that that is NOT at all what "well-regulated" meant. I argue that the well-regulated militia means a militia with a regulating force. Also, most people today argue that the first clause defines the second -- that a 'State-backed' Militia is necessary to defend and keep the State free. I argue that it is the other way around -- to keep the state free (and protect the rights of the people within said state), it is necessary to regulate the Militia so that its power does not become absolute. So, what then is the power that regulates the Militia if not the State? Easy, it's clearly spelled out in the third clause - the People. The People must have the right to keep and bear arms so that they can regulate and provide a power check on the Militia, a power check that is necessary to maintain the security of the State and remain free from tyranny by the same. The underlying argument itself is not new, and I feel that I've failed to capture some of the subtlety of my argument. Today, even many pro-2nd Amendment defenders concede 'well-regulated' to mean the State and just argue that it grants the right to bear arms to both groups, the People and the Militia. However, by conceding to, or even entertaining, that this Amendment was set up as anything other than an explicit check by the People on the State-run Militia, you muddy the waters and allow for obfuscation and re-interpretations. The mere act of saying that this applies to state-run Militias AND the People increases the likelihood that the People will lose their power under it. The greatest weakness the pro-individual right to bear arms crowd has made has been to allow people to view the Amendment as two clauses, one dealing with the militia and one dealing with individuals. My argument is that there is only one statement being made with what is an essentially parenthetical aside in the middle of it. The only meaning of the Amendment is that that the People have the right to keep and bear arms explicitly for the purpose of regulating and curtailing state authority because the ability to do so is necessary for a free society to remain free. Of course, nowadays, people who say that we need to keep a check on our State's military (and police) firepower are considered insane or revolutionary -- but it was revolutionaries, who just fought a war against a brutal and oppressive organized State military, who wrote the thing so that reading is not far-fetched. In fact, it is supported in their own personal, outside writings. They feared greatly a military dictatorship and a State more powerful than the citizens that comprise it. Elsewhere in the Constitution they sought to make it hard for the military to get too powerful. They gave Congress sole discretion of funding armies and the navy,
3. i believe we reserve the right of personal firearm possesion, and i have been supporting it too. if you want to know the list of things you can do to help you can visit the homepage nra.com it is the National Rifle Association and it has tons of stuff you can do to make your opinion and beliefs count. it is a myth that personal gun ownership leads to more kiling and crimes. If somebody is bad enough to want to kill someone, they will find a way, whether they obtain an illegal weapen or use something else.
4. The constitution gives every citizen the right to bear arms for defense . With that in mind here are the three reasons I would give . 1. If you take guns away from homest citizens who only have one for self protection , then only the criminals will have guns ( and they will ) and the criminals would go on a holiday . 2. If one person in some of thise massacres in McDonalds , on college campuses , etc .had had a gun then the slaughter of innocent people could have been stopped . 3. During 911 the terroists used knives and box cutters to take at least three passenger jets hostage and use the for mass destruction . If one person ( pilot or citizen ) had had a gun some of that damage could have been stopped . If it comes to a knife at a gunfight or a gun at a knife fight I will take the gun any day . Now pilots are permitted to carry a handgun and citizens can get a concealed handgun license , but none of these are permitted without proper trainning . I believe whole hardily that guns do not kill people , it is the people behind them that use them for evil . Most citizens care for their country and for their neighbors and most policemen would do whatever it takes to protect the citizens they serve , but the criminal is not going to give up his advantage and that is owning and carrying a gun . Do you think for one second that the criminal is going to register his guns ? Not a prayer .
5. You will have to look up the crime stats for other countries that have banned guns and see that their crime especially violent crime has risen.
6. cxvbxc f
7. 1. As has been pointed out, the removal of guns from a society has one of two effects, either crime stays the same, or it increases. An example, our nation's capital has strong gun laws, and is one of the most violent cities in the country. 2. The removal of firearms from a society has the effect of rendering the people of that society vulnerable to abuses by their government. Look around the world and you will see disarmed populations that are dirt under their rulers feet. 3. As our founding fathers believed, the population needs to be fully armed so that they can remove a corrupt government. Makes you wonder why one of our political parties is so adamant about gun restrictions.