Limit the right to bear arms

manishsinghon

Par 100 posts (V.I.P)
Hello guys,

Banning guns would not make them disappear or make them any less dangerous. It is a legitimate right of citizens to own weapons with which they can protect themselves, their family, and their property. Many people also need guns for other reasons. For example, farmers need guns in order to protect their stock and crops from pests, e.g. rabbits, birds, deer, foxes, stray dogs attacking sheep, etc.

Please share your views..
 

Tanvidesale

New member
This argument will have two sides first positive side:Self safety.If one has proper legal documents to own or bear arms then its not a problem as the purpose is self safety and security.
Negative side:Revenge or crime
Many times people misuse their right to bear arms by either misusing the arms for revenge,or some small crime.
So based on the actual motive or purpose of bearing arms decides the limitation.
 
Everybody needs to have the right to protect themselves and their houses. Nevertheless, they never need the right to get harm rifles or dangerous firearms to accomplish that. The weapons must be in the hands of the suitable individuals. The guns need to be offered for specific persons such as military ,the government, the law enforcement.
 

TheGrandAdmiral

New member
I agree with the original poster from an American point of view. Banning guns when they are already out on the streets will not solve the problem of violent crime but will instead make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable. Criminals would ignore the law anyway. I feel safer knowing that I am armed.
 
Top