TED Conversations

Billy Zhang

an undergraduate student,

This conversation is closed.

How would you feel if the government carried out a serious ban on guns?

Here in China, the government doesn't allow the free gun sales and the man who want to have his gun (usully for protecting the forest or animals) legally must have the arm licence which is also hard to obtain.
But I hear about that in many other countries ,any adult can buy guns freely just as biscuits.But as you all know, terrible shooting accidents are happening now and then.
Does your government start to draw out decrees over gun control or gun ban?How do you feel if the government carry it out seriously? I just want to know your true feeling without any offence.Thank you!

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 28 2013: All these arguments made in this conversation have been made in the last dozen conversations on this subject.
    That is "how do we take guns away from legal owners"
    So, let's cut to the chase. As long as the USA is a constitutional republic following it's original Constitution, the 2nd amendment will stay in place and gun ownership will be legal.

    Pointing out that there is no gun ownership in your country and how much better it is... rates the comment: "that's nice".

    If you are an American lamenting gun ownership, not a problem, to amend the constitution, you need 37 states to pass the amendment, so get started.

    If you have an original idea on how to eliminate illegal guns, that is an idea we can really use.
    • Jun 28 2013: not true. the constitution gives americans the right to bear "arms", it does not say what kind of arms nor give the right to have guns specifically. you'll note that nuclear arms are illegal as are a wide range of other military grade arms.
      • thumb
        Jun 28 2013: Ben,
        You've got to be kidding. When the situation of a gun owner wanting to declare his nuclear bomb rights under the 5th... We can discuss it.
        • thumb
          Jun 28 2013: The gun rights for all the rest of us are in the language "a well-regulated militia." Apparently most people think a militia is "any goober with a gun" and "well-regulated" means "no regulations or restrictions."

          Nobody is going to go door to door collecting guns. Nobody anywhere has ever suggested that we should. That's always been a right-wing fantasy that re-emerges every time a Democrat is in office.

          There need to be serious restrictions on purchase of fire arms and how those guns are handled. Guns are extremely dangerous. They need to have the same restrictions and oversight as bombs and explosives.
        • Jun 29 2013: my point isn't about the nuclear bombs, my point is that the constitution doesn't grant rights to access to all arms.
      • thumb
        Jun 28 2013: Ben, Susan, LaMar
        I have no idea on these comments. There are legal restrictions on the purchase, selling, types ,etc. of guns in these USA. Yes, firearms are deadly. Yes, they are legal, So, what is this discussion? Is it legal to own firearms? Yes. Don't like the law, change it. But, it is not the legal use of firearms that causes all the concerns, it is the ... illegal use...
        So why do we keep beating this legal gun horse to death.... Has anyone an idea on the removal, control etc. of the illegal guns that criminals use.
        And don't say if all the guns were gone in the whole country... problem solved.
        • Jun 29 2013: i agree that responsible gun owners should be allowed to own those guns. my point is you quoted the constitution as protecting people's right to own guns, which it does not. it says arms, not guns. if you are free to own a knife but not a gun, you are still armed and your constitutional rights are upheld.
      • thumb
        Jun 29 2013: Ben,
        It is pretty well accepted that the term in the constitution "arms" refers to firearms. The term is in both the Federalist papers and other writings by G. Mason.
        • Jun 29 2013: what kind of firearms? perhaps the single-shot muzzle loader types referred to in these papers?

          if it's not specific then we know it doesn't protect the right to every kind of arm, and if it is specific then we know it only gives the right to bear that particular kind of arm. either way the right to anything more powerful is not given by the constitution.
      • thumb
        Jun 29 2013: Ben,
        Local laws and regulations have pretty much limited the "arms" to hand and shoulder weapons,

        Automatic firearms, artillery pieces, air dropped munitions, etc. are regulated and controlled.

        What amuses me, is all the arguments to change or end the 2nd Amendment is because those gun owners have firepower of an infantry division and that is the best reason to change our Constitution.
        It's such a pitiful argument..

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.