Do you believe in the right to have a handgun at home for self-defense?

I believe that self-defense in an inherent human right, and that the Constitution not only guarantees your right to defend your person and property, but also your freedom. Citizens (free from mental illness and past convictions for violent crimes) should be allowed to apply for permits to carry guns outside of their homes, and should always be allowed to keep firearms within their homes. It is ridiculous to me that people think that if you take away guns, you will reduce violence.To those people I can only say: take a look at prisons.

If you take guns away from violent people, they remain violent: they sharpen down toothbrushes into weapons, mangle each other with their fists, and stuff hard objects into their socks to beat each other that way. And that's with 24 hour supervision. If you take guns away, you take only a tiny, trivial percentage of the items that can be used to kill a person.

If you really want to solve the problem of violence, I'm sorry to say it's a much more difficult road (so, sorry, but suck it up and admit you can't use the easy answer, because you're just interfering with the liberties of responsible citizens and wasting time). Even if taking away our gun rights did make our society safer, it would not make our society freer. And if I had to choose, I would choose freedom every time.

Being able to own a gun is more than the freedom of saying "I'm doing something other people don't like! " as the anti-gun lobby usually accuses us gun owners of wanting.It's the freedom to protect yourself, your family, and your property. More importantly, it's the freedom to defend your rights from the government, if it ever came down to it.

I know that sounds right-wing nutty (I'm actually incredibly liberal), but that's exactly why the Founders wrote the Second Amendment. A militia is a group of citizens that fights its own government to take back power. If this country was still even a shadow of its former self, when Bush sent his cronies out to arrest people and take them to secret prisons, militias would have risen up and stopped that.

Clearly, we'd rather shop at WalMart than defend our liberties, but we shouldn't give up the ability. The government should fear its people. Not the other way around.

So, should citizens be able to defend their own homes? At a bare minimum.

YES! YES! It is our right and in some cases, very necessary.

Without going into some big debate over handguns, I will just state my reasoning. A decent pistol costs what, $300.00? And a human life is worth what, everything?

So, if three hundred bucks can save my life, you bet I’m keeping one. No questions, no doubt.

I don't think there is any problem with a person having a gun (especially a handgun) in their home for personal reasons. Although, I do have a problem with them allowing concealed weapons in bars in some states. There is no reason why a person wouldn't be able to have a handgun at their home to protect themselves, but there is no reason that a person needs a concealed weapon in a bar.

I just typed a ridiculously long post about why all handguns should be outlawed and it was lost to a web error. Apparently the Mahalo engine has a right wing slant. But in short - Handguns in homes are dangerous, and are far more likely to result in accidental discharge and death of children and adults than they are to be used in successful self defense.

Handguns have no real purpose other than to kill humans. Hunting and sport can be done with rifles and shotguns. Assault rifles are even worse, having no reason to exist other than mass murder or assassination (or war).

The Second Amendment is not an absolute. The Supreme Court exists to interpret the Constitution, which has been amended many times since its creation. Each of the first 10 amendments has been intepreted in a non-absolute fashion.

The freedom of speech is limited - you cannot threaten others, you cannot yell fire in a theater. The freedom to assemble is also limited - you cannot have a riot, nor can you assemble on private land. The eight amendment, barring excessive bail for prisoners, is certainly up to debate on a case by case basis.

The original document is not even clear on whether these rights apply to all within our borders or only to citizens, which clearly is something that is debated in some cases. As such, this country (and supreme court) is well within its rights and precedent to limit what the "right to bear and keep arms" means. If you ask me, it should mean that you have a right to have a rifle and shotgun for general use and hunting.

Handguns should be allowed by permit only. Gun sales should be heavily restricted, and punishments for violation of these rules should be severe.

There is a huge controversy about the right to have a handgun at home. Personally I believe it is a "good" thing because everybody should be able to protect themselves. However the problem that remains is too many people will abuse the law and not only use the handguns for self-defense.

Therefore the State will have to thoroughly think this through and decide what is best. I don't think it is such a good idea because handguns will eventually only lead to more violence.

I suppose I believe in the right for people to have one, but I truly hope everyone who's interested in acquiring one seriously considers the risks. It is much more likely that an accident will occur harming a member of your family than that you'll successfully use the weapon to ward off a home invasion in process. Truth be told, what's so wrong with keeping a rifle if you really feel you must have a weapon for protection?

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.