Should individuals have a right to bear arms?

Topic:
Crime Debates

29 Contributors
in this discussion.

Yes
90% of users

  • The U.S. Constitution promises the right to bear arms, and therefore it should remain part of a citizen's guaranteed rights.

    The 2nd amendment remains in the Constitution and as long as that document rules the land, then the right to bear arms remains. That said, Congress could make an amendment that prevents individuals from "bearing" semi-automatic weapons, or requiring a license with a detailed background check, so that the safety of one's fellow citizens is considered.

    Yes P3nrIin

  • Yes, individuals should have the right to bear arms because it is our 2nd amendment.

    The U.S. Constitution states in the 2nd amendment that we have a right to bear arms. If this were taken away, then our government would be going against everything the Constitution stands for. This country was built on freedom, and if our rights are to be taken away, it would be going against everything this nation once stood for.

    Yes AnnoyedDong77

  • Yes, I agree that individuals should have the right to bear arms because it is a constitutional right.

    Yes, I agree that individuals should have the right to bear arms because it is a constitutional right. However, individuals still should get a license and permit to have one. Having the constitutional right to bear arms gives people the option to protect themselves when it comes to saving their own life.

    Yes SecondNoel50

  • As one of the core rights instilled by our Constitution, I do believe that individuals have the right to bear arms.

    While guns are indeed dangerous in the wrong hands, I believe, with correct licensing and ownership procedures, guns can be owned safely and responsibly. Furthermore, rural citizens can attest that there are many practical gun ownership benefits that go beyond personal protection.

    Yes ToughEfrain26

  • SELF DEFENSE

    An individual should always have the right to bear arms, because of self defense purposes. Many will argue that criminals will then have an excuse to bear a weapon, but so will the victim. So if a so called "bad guy" were to come and attack you, you will be prepared and can defend your self and your constitutional right. This man over on the negative side of the debate ---> states one case of a crazy British guy running around shooting people which is merely one incident. Plus he says some one gets shot every few seconds doesn't mean an innocent woman or child gets shot, police shoot people also and that's why we do have the right to bear arms and we always will.

    Yes Anonymous

  • Yes, people should have a right to bear arms, because they need a way to protect themselves from things that may happen.

    An example of someone needing to bear arms for protection is if someone else tried to sexually assault, kill, or do other bodily harm to them. They would need to be able to defend against the attack. If they couldn't, they could be seriously hurt or even killed. Defenselessness is never a good idea for anyone these days.

    Yes darcyska

  • First of all, lets see what Jesus Christ, the original Founding Father of us all, had to say about the right to bear arms!

    Gun powder had not yet been invented.  The weapon of the day was the sword. One of the last instructions he gave his disciples in the Garden was Luke 22: 36. The key admonishment "LET HIM WHO HAS NO SWORD, SELL HIS CLOAK AND BUY ONE

    Yes Anonymous

  • U.S Citizens should have the right to bear arms

    because it helps protect families and hunters from dagerous animals and ill-criminals. It gives adults a piece of mind to know they have some what of protection in their household. Especially ,if the adult is very ill , or particially disabled. Although,it highly dangerous to have a gun and it gets in the wrong hands , but those responsible deserve to know they are protected.

    Yes Anonymous

  • I support the right to bear arms because it can help the fight against crime.

    Crime is definitely on the rise in today's world. Criminals will be able to take advantage of people who have little way to defend themselves. However, if people were allowed to carry guns, it would 'level the playing field'. Criminals would now have an element of doubt, since they won't know if their victim has a weapon or not. Therefore, not only could it help the person bearing the arms, but the rest of society as well.

    Yes Sims66

  • I oppose the right to bear arms because of the nature of our citizenry.

    In America, the right to bear arms historically came from the threat of British soldiers during the Revolutionary War. Today, we are under no threat from any government in our daily lives. The government provides fairly sufficient protection. Guns in the hands of the general public today would likely cause more problems because of how they would be used in urban situations where there is poverty and gang violence. The right to bear arms in these areas is likely to result in more death and destruction and danger to law enforcement. This is likely to cost the government a large amount both socially and economically.

    Yes bandgeek330

  • Not everyone who bears arms does so with ill intentions so they should not be punished for the careless mistakes of others.

    Some people collect arms as a hobby. Not giving people the right to bear arms takes away their constitutional rights. I'm all for gun control and preventing arms violence, but there are plenty of people that bear arms for hobbies or for protection purposes. I don't think it's right to punish them for the crimes that others might commit.

    Yes jaamata

  • I believe that every American has the right to bear arms.

    First, I would like to state that our country was founded on just a few rights; the right to bear arms was one of the first. In America, we are supposed to be in the land of the free. To be free is to be able to bear arms, as well as free speech. I believe we never should just give away the rights that our four fathers fought so hard to receive.

    Yes takenbywayne

  • Individuals should have a right to bear arms for the purpose of personal protection.

    Individuals should have the right to protect themselves and their assets from anyone who tries to hurt/damage them. The increase in crime has left people scared and I believe people should have a right to defend themselves.

    Yes emotopiwah

  • I agree that individuals should have the right to bear arms, wither you are using it for protection of hunting you should be able to own one.

    Once a person has passed the background exam and they can certify that you have no issue of mental illness. People should have the right to protect themselves with a gun. Guns are not the problem its people who don't know how to properly use or store them that are the problem. Guns are safe in the hands of the of the correct people.

    Yes C0ImEIite

  • I think individuals should have a right to bear arms to protect themselves.

    I think individuals should have a right to bear arms to protect themselves. Often times the government is not able to provide the proper security necessary for a person to survive, such as during a time of direst. Because of this, individuals should be allowed to bear arms in order to protect themselves. For example, during a home robbery, most police are unable to arrive on the scene on time. If the individual is able to bear arms, then they are able to protect themselves against the robbery and/or violence during the event.

    Yes ObaICheese

  • Arms are the ability to act at a distance, a gun is a long distance hole puncher. People have the right to expand their sphere of influence through tools.,

    I learned a lot about guns from an eighty-pound kid. I learned that, just as Tae Kwon Do makes my size and sheer power to intimidate questionable (I still remember the time I got my butt soundly kicked by a one armed little girl) the use of tools is a great equalizer. Intent and courage are one thing, the ability to back it up another. I'd always held sway physically by more or less creating a shadow until I started training. Unequal natural ability to sway the environment can be mitigated by education, rehearsal or tools. People who have advantages need to be shaken up from time to time, get their arrogance taken down a notch.

    Yes groovybox

  • I believe individuals have the right bear fire arms to defend themselves.

    I believe individuals have the right to bear fire arms. It is a dangerous world and we currently do not have enough police to protect us. Guns do not create bad people, a jail system that doesn't discipline does. Guns have protected people for centuries. If we ban guns people will have to substitute other weapons.

    Yes RaouICyber

  • Individuals should have a right to bear arms due to the fact that the constitution of the US boldly states we could.

    I believe that individuals should have the right to bear arms because our constitution loosely states we could. However, this right to bear arms would mean that people can carry guns to protect themselves from the dangerous people that walk on the streets. Also, this can mean that we have a right to bear arms when wartime comes about to stay protected from the many dangers that lurk outside.

    Yes N34rIyGaIv

  • I believe in the second amendment that guarantees us the right to bear arms.

    The founding fathers had very good reasons to include the right to "keep and bear arms" in our Bill of Rights. Many of these reasons still ring true today in our modern society. Some of those reasons include: deterring tyrannical government, the ability to protect oneself and one's property, aiding in protection of the homeland. While the government can have reasonable restrictions (such as not allowing a felon to own a firearm), law-abiding citizens should be allowed to have firearms.

    Yes KourtneyB

  • The only difference between freedom and tyranny is the ability and will to defend freedom

    Aaron Zelman, one of the founders of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, once said, "If every Jewish and anti-Nazi family in Germany had owned a Mauser rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition AND THE WILL TO USE IT, Adolf Hitler would be a little-known footnote to the history of the Weimar Republic." One of the first acts of Hitler's chancellor for life rule was to decree that Jews could not have guns. Once they could not defend themselves, they were able to be herded into ghettos. Once they were isolated and hidden from society, they could be worked without food. Once worked almost unto death, they could be sent to their deaths. Yes, this was World War 2. Yet this pattern repeated in the disarmament and then Holomodor (Holocaust by starvation) in Ukraine under Stalin. And the disarmament and then massive death purges in the Great Leap Forward. When only tyrants have guns, only tyrants make the rules.

    Yes Pir4And

  • I believe individual should have a right to bear arms, as described in the Second Amendment.

    The right to bear arms is an important right, one that the framers felt necessary to mention in the Bill of Rights. It allows individuals to protect themselves, their loved ones, and their homes. In addition, according to Jefferson and other founders, it serves as a check against government tyranny.

    Yes ZxcutieGeorg

  • As guaranteed by the 2nd amendment, citizens should have the right to bear arms.

    Having a gun in your home should be a right if you are not a felon. If you can not protect your home or your property in a time of crisis, it puts your family and your belongings in immediate jeopardy of something bad happening to the ones you love. Criminals never play by the rules. If guns are illegal, what is stopping a criminal from getting one anyways? There is a black market for anything and taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is not ideal for having a peaceful balanced society.

    Yes R3ubHockey

  • Individuals should have a right to bear arms

    Individuals should have a right to bear arms, but that does not mean every person should have access to every weapon at any time under all circumstances. Responsible adults should have access to what they need, but we need restrictions to make sure the right people (e.g. non-felons) have these weapons and are treating them with respect towards others.

    Yes H0bi3Invader

  • Individuals should have the right to bear arms for personal safety.

    Individuals should have the personal right to bear arms for the simple fact of freedom. Yes, guns in the hands of wrong individuals is stupid, but if they take away the freedom all it would do is keep the guns in the hands of stupid people and take them away from innocent people who need to protect themselves. Also, it is not guns that kill people. People kill people. They should be monitored, but not made illegal.

    Yes taihenraion

  • People should have a right to bear arms because it allows people to defend themselves and their property.

    People should be able to own firearms because everyone deserves a sense of security. People should be able to protect their home against potential burglars. I do not consider it morally acceptable to kill anyone unless in all out self defense (or defense of your family) but the right to bear arms is not the same as the right to kill. A burglar is about ten times more likely to flee if he sees a gun pointed at him or hears a shot fired than if he sees someone holding a golf club or something. It's a matter of security, and everyone should be able to feel secure.

    Yes TwoVic

  • I support the basic right to bear arms.

    The right to bear arms is one of the core principles of our founding fathers. A person has a right to protect himself and his family from harm. Without the right to bear arms, only criminals and law enforcement officers would have arms. This would leave the average person without any means of defense against violence.

    Yes VasilBuddy
Voice Your Opinion
No
10% of users

  • No, because more guns mean more violence.

    Weapons are designed to inflict harm on other people. We do not have a right to inflict harm on others, so we should not have a right to the means to do so. While inflicting harm is sometimes justified, as in self-defense, eliminating access to weapons would reduce the frequency and exigency of self-defense scenarios.

    No HaplessBritt39

  • I do not believe that individuals should have the right to bear arms, because it is dangerous and unnecessary.

    I believe that individuals should not have the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is an outdated concept that only serves to create a more dangerous society. While the idea of individuals bearing arms may have made sense at one point, the development of modern judicial and military establishments have removed the need. In addition, allowing individuals to arm themselves only serves to destabilize society.

    No GrievingStephen58

  • This was in the constitution for families to protect themselves from militia at the beginning of our country. It is no longer necessary.

    Look what happened in the UK 6 months ago. Some crazy guy got a hold of a gun and shot some people. It was HUGE news. Guns are not common or legal in the UK. Some guy goes around and shots people for 20 minutes and everyone freaks. In the USA some gets shot every few seconds it is no longer news worthy. That is shocking.

    No etchedgrphx
Voice Your Opinion

Related Debates

Debate Topics

 
 
Should individuals have a right to bear arms?
Top of Page
© 2010 Juggle, LLC
All Rights Reserved
Encyclopedia & Reference Resource