Time to get rid of the Second Amendment?

In my opinion, its time Americans realised it isn't the 1700s anymore and the 2nd amendment be changed. After the death of a 4 year old boy over Christmas from a falling AK47 bullet, its time for stricter gun laws. How many more people need to die?

Update:

Sophie, I'm Australian, that is how it is spelt.

Then tell me what good being able to carry a firearm is? America has had so many massacres due to the ease of access to weapons, it is ridiculous. After the Port Arthur massacre in Australia, gun laws were tightened and there has been no massacres of the sort since. I'm not communist, you are just backward.

Update 2:

If everyday people cant go out without a firearm its time to look at your country.

Update 3:

IMO, there is no problem with regulated handgun and sport rifle ownership.

Update 4:

IMO, there is no problem with regulated and licensed ownership of handguns and sport rifles, but assault rifles are unnecessary.

Update 5:

Are you for real? High school students should have had guns to stop the killers.

Update 6:

Daniel, are all of these lying?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/falling-bul...

http://www.news.com.au/world/falling-bullet-kills-...

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/news/22106539/detail.htm...

I'm not afraid of guns I own 2, difference is they are stored afely on a rural property and not used in residential areas. And call me un-American I dont care. Im not American, proudly.

16 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favourite answer

    That is one of the first things Hitler did. An unarmed public is very easy to control. It's sad that there are irresponsible gun owners but that's like saying we need to ban cars because some people drive drunk and kill others. Doesn't make much sense.

  • 1 decade ago

    If we got rid of all the guns then the government could come into our houses and get rid of us. Of course they can already do that with smart bombs and unmanned planes, even if we had guns... But we need guns to protect our homes from thieves. Although police forces give a 10 step plan to protect against break and enter without guns, and statistically these 10 step plans are more effective than guns....

    But we still need guns to ... ah... OK you're right we don't need gun, but people have to have them because guns are COOL!

  • 1 decade ago

    Sonny, you need to do a bit of research:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_velocity

    No one gets killed from a bullet fired straight up into the air. The only way it's going to happen is if someone fires a bullet at an angled trajectory. Simple physics. And it's retarded to fire a gun in the direction of people/houses. So the person should go to jail, even though they probably didn't mean to do it. People also crash their cars and run over people on purpose, but no one is screaming to outlaw them. People can come up with ingenious ways of killing each other; we always have. And we will continue to kill no matter what we have to do to achieve it. Unfortunately, we're violent creatures. Because of that, it's also common sense that the "good ones" in our population need weapons to defend ourselves from the bad (who will always have weapons). I know plenty of children who can understand that. I once heard a 4 year old child urge my friend (his father) to buy a gun to protect him from the "bad guys". He did, and he's glad he hasn't needed it yet.

    It's also absolute BS to say the only point of guns is to kill humans. It's not. Guns are more useful as a tool of survival. They can defend you from attacks from animals, get you a meal and yes, they definitely can protect you from other humans (which are a million times more dangerous than even the most large and angry bear). Guns are also a blast (pun intended) for sporting events and competitions. Just like boat racing (which also happens to kill people, hmmm).

    Also, what the hell is an "AK-47 bullet"? There's no such thing. The AK-47 uses the 7.62x39mm center fire cartridge, which is also used in a wide assortment of other weapons. "But it was fired from an AK-47, doesn't that count!?" ...well, you're probably dead wrong. Real AK-47s are extremely rare and very expensive. There are lots of guns that LOOK like an AK-47, but are actually just semi-auto copycats (I own one). There are very few real AK-47s in the U.S., and anyone who has one is incredibly lucky!

    I don't find it surprising that the very people seeking to outlaw guns don't know the first thing about them. They watch Rambo or Terminator, and are suddenly an "expert" on guns and politics. Even SUGGESTING we change ANY part of the Constitution is ridiculous, and I hate to say it, UN-American. And I don't care what amendment we're talking about: 1st, 2nd, 5th, 14th, whatever.

    You REALLY need some therapy. Book yourself a trip to Alaska or the Canadian wilderness, and learn how to take care of yourself without mommy and daddy's money and the local KFC. You will learn a thing or two and build some character. No, it's not a "redneck thing" or a "hillbilly thing". The majority of this earth is beautiful wilderness which people, sadly, don't know jack about. Self-reliance is a virtue. And I wouldn't really call working at McDonald's and getting a little "take-home baggie" each night real self-reliance. :-/

    Source(s): Ehhh, yes... After reading the article, the comments made by the "officials" are very ignorant. There's no way they can magically tell an "AK-47" is to blame, especially since most rifles firing 7.62x39mm rounds have barrels manufactured to nearly the exact same specifications (per country). Then from country to country (formerly known as the "Comm-Block"), each variant of the AK-47 and its relatives (like the preceding Siminov Karbina, aka SKS) are produced differently. There are different barrel lengths, twist rates and in some countries, radical changes of design. Just read the line: "[...]the bullet had most likely been fired from an AK-47 assault rifle and could have been fired as far as three to five kilometres away." They're definitely unsure, and obviously have no idea what they're talking about. An "assault rifle", according to the armies of the world, is a military issued rifle which is capable of SELECT-FIRE (as in, having a means of switching between SEMI- and FULLY- automatic) that fires an intermediate sized round. These are incredibly rare in the United States. Every person who owns one has legally registered the gun with the BATFE. If this was really the result of an "AK-47", they could simply look up who owns it and catch them within an hour. But the simple fact remains, there's no way you can find a bullet in a victim and magically know it came from an "assault rifle", especially when there are identical semi-automatic versions of the weapon, lol. So yes, I call BS here. The ambiguity they've either mistakenly or intentionally created serves ignorant anti-gun activists well. Believe it or not, REAL assault rifles are the LEAST likely to turn up in a crime or accident. Why? The people who own them are enthusiasts who spent an easy $10k - $100k on the weapon (depending on the type/year/model/etc). They don't "play" with them. They're serious, rare collector's pieces. That's like trying to blame Ferrari owners for the majority of hit and runs in the U.S., when it's actually one of the least likely to be involved. Also, the claim the bullet was possibly fired 3-5km away is ridiculous. The 7.62x39mm round is quite heavy and slow moving. It simply doesn't have that range. After about 800m (roughly a half mile), it's velocity is gone and it becomes unstable. Past 1000m, you'd be better off throwing stones at the target from up close. If it was fired on a very high arc, that magical thing, TERMINAL VELOCITY, is going to come into effect. Though very tragic, the reporting on this story is utterly ridiculous. My heart goes out to the family, and I really hope they catch the moron who fired the bullet. But I also hope the idiots twisting the reality behind the story face correction. Also, if you're really Australian, keep your nose out of our Constitution (no offense). You don't see me pushing my agendas on your country.
  • 1 decade ago

    yup Germany did that once and we got world war 2. the second amendment must stay because if you throw that out the window things like freedom of the press, free speech and the right to assemble will not be far behind.even if you took all the guns away the only ones you'd be getting would be from law abiding citizens. the bad guys will always have guns.edit: You go Daniel you deserve the 10 points in my book!

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Rick
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    I suggest doing some research on other countries/societies that have banned weapons and other "rights" from their population. Check out the English and their colonies.

    Historically, many of the norms accepted and embraced by "advanced" societies have turned out badly for the people of which the gov't was supposed to protect. Not be be fanning the flames, but Hitler banned guns, restricted assembly and movement of the people (to protect them), etc.

  • Charro
    Lv 6
    1 decade ago

    That's a great idea, take the guns from citizens so they can't defend themselves! Look, the criminals are going to get the guns no matter what. What are we supposed to do without guns wait for 20 or 30 minutes on the police? By then we'll be dead.

  • Trix
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    It's irresponsible idiots that don't know how to handle or are careless with guns that is the problem, not the guns. I don't believe people should own assault rifles, but other guns, yes they should have the right to.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Assuming stricter gun laws even would make people a little bit safer (which I do not believe)...

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

    -Benjamin Franklin

  • 1 decade ago

    All this stuff about guns being used by people to defend themselves against tyranny would be more persuasive if there were examples of guns being used to stop someone's house being repossessed because of mortgage arrears or to stop someone being sacked by their employer.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    No we shouldnt take the second amendment completely away, but we do need stricter gun control laws.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.