Monday, December 17, 2012
2nd Amendment
Do you think the 2nd Amendment should protect the right to carry guns in public? Should it continue to protect the right to individual ownership within one's home?
Please do not use the Sandy Hook incident as the sole source of your reasoning, as difficult as that may be at this early time.
Please post by Wednesday night
Articles for Consideration.
Fox News - Supreme Court Article http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/17/connecticut-tragedy-stirs-new-debate-over-gun-control-entertainment-culture/
CNN - White House to reinstitute Assault Weapons Ban http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/politics/obama-assault-weapons/index.html?hpt=po_c2
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You all did a wonderful job being so thoughtful in the last blog. Your answers were intelligent, well stated and mature. Please keep up the good work and keep raising the bar.
ReplyDeletePlease remember to be thorough and respectful.
The 2nd amendment guarentied the "right to bare arms" but what it didnt do is limit this right. With a right that deals with such things as deadly weapons there must be restrictions. I believe that the right to bare arms is important and I don't think it will be going away very soon; for that reason we need to control this right. While I dont think there is anything wrong with someone owning a hunting rifle or a handgun, I don't see why a civilian needs to own an assault rifle. Its scary to imagine that anyone around you could be holding a weapon powerful enough to mow down 100 people in a miute. If these types of guns cant be outlawed for a civilian to own I atleast want to see an extensive training program and some sort of check-ups on owners. Limitation is the one way that I believe can make both sides of this party pleased. Gun enthusiasts can go through the process to own their guns and the rest of the world can walk around feeling a little bit safer about their well being. Love Dan
ReplyDeleteDan is right, American citizens have the right to bear arms but the question is to what extent. Only in America massacres like this occur as frequent as this between Sandy Hook, Aurora, the Oregon mall,Virginia Tech and the Arizona mall. A few of these, Sandy Hook and Aurora, involved semi automatic or automatic weapons. Now why someone would find the need for an automatic weapon is beyond me. Even if used for hunting, it is unnecessary. They should be outlawed like Dan said. There is no reason for civilians to have guns capable of that much damage and destruction at all. If people have the fear of being shot then this country has a big problem on its hands.Personally I am against guns and feel they should be outlawed completely but that is just unfeasable. One way to limit gun possession is to raise the price of owning and maintaining a gun. Maybe a tax or monopolize the gun industry making the actual price of the gun higher. This way people still have the right to own but would have to have the money to.
DeleteShivaram
I agree withDan on this matter. Americans have always had the right to bear arms and even tragedies such as this one are not going to change that right. Although it is fairly obvious that all together banning guns would not be possible I feel that it is extremely important to limit the sales of semi automatic weapons, being that automatic weapons already are banned. These types of weapons are unnecessary even for hunting and in no circumstances are necessary. Limiting the sales of these dangerous weapons is the only way to try to combat the problem. In the end however it really is impossible to keep guns out of someone's hands who really tries hard to obtain them.
DeleteDan has the right idea. The 2nd amendment needs restrictions on things like: what guns are available for purchase, who is allowed to purchase these weapons, and what kinds of background checks are taken on not only the purchaser of the firearm but the immediate family as well. The upcoming ban on "large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds" seems to be a step in the right direction towards promoting the safety of american civilians while keeping firearm enthusiast's interest in mind. I feel that while there is no need to carry an assault rifle to go deer hunting (for say) it is part of our rights as citizens to own firearms like those. In the coming future a ban on assault rifles may be needed, but for now a limit on ammunition carrying devices seems to be the proper step. In regards to the safety of students (pertaining to friday's horrible events) I feel that the way to prevent and/or quickly dismiss attacks such as the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School is by the staffing of a armed police officer or security guard in the building while in session. Although a single armed officer may not seem like a stopping force against an attacker, they are trained to quickly and carefully deal with situations involving gunman. The rights we are given in the 2nd amendement are just that, our rights, but that does not mean that with changing times we cannot effectively limit or change these. In the times that our constitution was written, the general population served as the nation's only defense against oppression and therefore our law of the land needed to protect this right. Our 2nd amendment needs reform and I feel that President Barack Obama can and will lead our country towards days where we live in a safer America.
DeleteI definitely would have to agree with what Dan said here. Guns have always been allowed to be owned, and they will continue to be allowed. Stricter laws and regulations need to be made, however. While there is nothing wrong with a hunting gun or something of that nature, as Dan said, people should not be able to get assault weapons so easily. Obviously if people want to kill, they will find a way, but the America would most likely be a little safer if our gun laws were a little stricter.
DeleteDan,
DeleteI completely agree with you on this topic. I believe that people should have to right to bare arms but they need restrictions. Completely banning this would do nothing but cause an uproar because we have always had the right to own a weapon. Different tactics need to be taken to handle the guns and weapons situation; therefore I believe people should not have such easy access to purchasing them. I think it is acceptable for people to have hunting guns because we have always had that right. I don’t think everyone should be capable of purchasing a gun. Too many criminals are getting their hands on guns and it threatens the lives of many. I believe restrictions should be created on the right to bare arms but abolishing this right will solve nothing.
Shannon Lussier
I agree with Dan but many believe that guns should be banned or strictly reserved for police officers and military. I understand the thought process behind those who are fighting for more gun control, but it is an outrageous idea. A law stating that you can't use guns, would simply control the common citizens of the United States. We are rule followers and abide by the laws. Criminals, are criminals, and there will always be criminals. The laws wouldn't stop them from getting guns, they already buy their guns illegally, it would simply leave us unprotected. To point to the Connecticut tragedy, it literally made me sick thinking about the evil people that are a part of this world. Unfortunately, if gun laws were stricter, I don't believe that the outcome would've changed. The weapons weren't his, he stole them. He was a disgusting human being and an evil person who would've found a way to do what he did, regardless of what laws were in place to stop him. If just one teacher had the right to carry in their school though, this might have had a different outcome. You can't punish the "good guys" for the tragedies that the "bad guys" create. Among us there are single mothers, veterans, and widows. We all live in America, the land of the free, and have the right to protect ourselves and our families. This right CANNOT be taken away.
ReplyDeleteBrandyn has the right idea. Gun ownership rights simply cannot be taken away. Citizens without some form of protection are essentially leaving their other freedoms to chance and the good will of our government. Many realize this and would balk at the idea of leaving all of their faith in any one power. However, as sad as it may be, the fact is that if someone wants a gun bad enough, they will get it. It doesn't matter how many laws and restrictions are placed on ownership. These facts reintroduce the age old cliché; 'damned if you do, damned if you don't'. We're damned if we allow guns and we're damned if we don't. For this reason, there is no easy solution. Yet, I doubt the government will set idly by as two tragedy's of the magnitude have occurred in this past year alone. I feel that the best solution at this point is to try restrict gun ownership to allow ownership to only proper citizens with good intent (ie. guns for sport, defense, law enforcement, etc.). This will not put an end to all of these terrible occurrences. "Good guys" are still being punished and the "bad guys" will still make problems. It is also quite possible that stricter laws would not have prevented the loss in Connecticut. However, doing nothing is simply not acceptable.
DeleteBrandyn, you bring up a good point in saying that gun control laws would not prevent criminals from obtaining guns. However, we should not be forced to arm ourselves simply due to the fact that there are "bad guys" out there. While I agree with you on the fact that outlawing/controlling gun ownership would not put an end to "terrorism," I argue that doing nothing and continuing to allow civilians to carry high capacity assault weapons would bring us no closer.
DeleteI agree with Brandyn completely. Making stricter gun laws wil do basically nothing to stop people from using them in harmful ways. If a person possesses such a hate for anyone else that they want to kill them, a simple law saying 'no, you can't have a gun' is clearly not going to stop them. They had the intent to kill before they got the weapon, therefore how they get it will make no difference to them. Perhaps creating laws on what kind of weapons people are not allowed to possess would be beneficial, such as automatic or semiautomatic weapons.
DeleteBrandyn, I do agree with you that strict gun laws may not stop anyone especially those with the intent to kill. You have brought this to my attention, and it is sad to realize that there are people out there who will go out of their way to find weapons just to hurt others. I also agree with you that if just one teacher in the school had been able to carry a weapon there may have been a different outcome in the whole situation. The perpetrator could have been slowed down and less innocent lives may not have been taken.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Brandyn in almost all of what she said. Creating stricter gun laws will only affect the people who actually follow gun laws. But I strongly disagree with the idea of having a teacher with a gun inside of the school. the gunman had a bulletproof vest and even if the teacher was able to take down the gunman, I think we will have reached a point of no return in american history. When we rely on a teacher to protect the lives of our students with guns in a place that was meant to be learning, we need to look at what we are teaching the children to. They will be taught to accept the violence in their world as just something that happens instead of recognizing it for how wrong it really is.
Delete(forgot my name on the last one)
Chris Darroch
I completely agree with everything you said Brandyn. One of the things people misunderstand sometimes is specifically what you said in that criminals are criminals. Most of the time, their weapons are obtained illegally so there is no point in making the gun laws more strict for the people that follow them. This also means that like you said, taking the right away completely would be wrong. I also think that arming a teacher in the school is a plausible idea. Though, I don't necessarily think it's the best because having a teacher with a gun on them at all times has some potential for accidents with students possibly trying to take it or other scenarios. I disagree with Chris though in that kids should not accept this as a regular occurrence. As President Obama said in his speech regarding Sandy Hook (sorry to bring it up), we can not accept these as just a part of life. There is violence in this world but no one should have make these acts of terror as a commonality in their lives, especially children. I do agree in some kind of better defense that should be employed in schools such as maybe a couple staff members with weapons stowed away somewhere. It's hard to come up with affordable and efficient solutions but we definitely need to protect this right.
DeleteThe state of Connecticut has some of the strictest laws on gun control in the country. However, on a national level assault weapons, designed for military use with the specific intent of harm, can legally be obtained by civilians. I believe that the national ban on assault weapons, which expired in 2004, needs to be reinstated. The weapon used to kill many of the victims was a high-powered .223 caliber Bushmaster. These types of guns are not on the same level as hunting guns or handguns; these semi-automatic guns are the type used by law enforcement and the military. At the time that the founding fathers agreed upon the right to bear arms, they were thinking of the need to protect ourselves against a potentially over-powerful government. In recent years assault rifles have not been used in defense of our rights; they have been used to the effect of killing fellow civilians and throwing our nation into distress. The founding fathers did not write the second amendment to give the mentally unstable the right to carry weapons designed to kill. I strongly agree with Senator Feinstein's plan to introduce a de facto renewal of the ban on assault weapons. Yes, many may argue that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." I would argue that people cannot kill people without guns.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the ban on assault weapons should be reinstated. Any argument that gun advocates make against this is merely a slippery slope argument. Bottom line, there is no need for a gun that shoots more than one bullet at a time for hunting nor for self defense. I think it would be interesting to look up shooting statistics and laws in European countries where guns are restricted to a much higher degree.
DeleteI agree that citizens having access to assult weapons simply doesn't make sense. The problem with saying the constitution allows "the right to bare arms" is that at that time "arms" meant something completely different. The founding fathers were refering to muskets that took minutes to reload, not guns that could fire several rounds very quickly. I can understand guns for hunting, but anything that can cause devistation with one hundred bullets being able to be shot is not pragmatic to allow citizens to have. Being for who has no use for guns myself makes it difficult to understand why it is so important to be able to own any sort of assult weapon. Guns like this were originally designed for military and police use, and have no place for regular citizens. I think that whenever any sort of incident involving a gun occurs, people are always looking to improve on gun laws, and I believe there is room for improvement.
Delete-McKenzie Harrington
I agree with all of the previous posts. I feel that a high caliber assault rifle should never reach the hands of a citizen, and be reserved only for the military. I believe in the right to bare arms, it's our constitutional right and I think that it should be respected. But back when the constitution was made, assault rifles, glocks, and other high powered weapons were not available. Now they are, and we need to find a way to limit their usage. Banning them would most certainly help, but I believe there are other ways too. Much like having new weapons, we also have new technology and gun safes. Why couldn’t we make the requirements for getting a gun stricter? Or adding fingerprint scanners to gun safes and weapons. Fingerprinting would force only the rightful, approved gun owner to use the weapon. While this wouldn't eliminate the problem, it would certainly help to prevent guns from falling into unstable and unsafe hands.
ReplyDeleteThat is an interesting point with the fingerprinting. I think that having a gun and knowing how to use it can be helpful in situations of self defense but limiting bullets can also help. If you're defending yourself, it is rare that you will need to shoot the amount of bullets that a semi automatic or automatic weapon does. Limiting availability of bullets could be equally effective. Without bullets a gun could merely be used as a blunt force weapon is stead of inflicting the terror it has seen in the recent days.
DeleteThe fingerprinting is a great idea, and would definitely work to help the situation. However, a gun safe can be practically impossible to gain access to id the owner is responsible. For example, even though my dad knows I'm responsible enough, I have zero access to our guns. He always has it locked, and I have no idea where the key is. That's how it should be for every gun owner. This makes me very confused about why the mother of the shooter didn't do the same. She obviously knew her son was off, so even if she had her guns locked up her son shouldn't have known where the key was.
DeleteIn regards to Alex's bullet idea, the magazine size could be limited too. There is practically no need for more than 5 rounds in a magazine, and it's something gun owners might actually be willing to give up.
i agree with what tim has to say here but i would also say that limiting the magazine size or the type of weapon is slightly excessive. i think the idea of a fingerprint scanner is very interesting. However if we limit the types of weapons people can buy then what's to stop it from eventually stopping people form owning guns at all. We have a tendency of giving up some freedom for security, but when do we give too much? there are people who would agree with restricting the guns you can buy, and i have no problem with this concept. But there are people who do. When we start to give up a little on something so important its easy to lose track of when we have given up too much. I would say that there needs to be a change. What exactly needs to be changed i cannot say, however i think banning assault rifles would surly step on some toes.
DeleteNo, I believe that the right to bear arms should not apply for public possession. Recently in Portland, OR, a clearly insane male entered the town mall and yelled, "I am the shooter!" and startled 10,000 shoppers. The man eventually killed two clerks and then proceeded to shoot himself. This case scenario is a prime example of the chaos that could occur in public areas such as a mall. On the other hand, home ownership of a gun should still be protected mainly because a person might need it for self defense. I know that it's a law that you cannot kill somebody in your home but if someone entered your house and was killing your family and you knew that you could easily kill him with your fire arm then our bodies initial reaction would be to fire the gun. That is just a scenario of what could possibly happen but you never know. Alright I'm out.
ReplyDeleteLove, Joe
chill
DeleteExcellent job to this point ladies and gentlemen. You all bring up valid arguments. It sounds as though most are willing to allow citizens to own weapons but would like semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles banned. What do others think of this? Also, consider the right to carry when in public. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeletejshan
I agree with Brandyn, there is no easy solution to this problem. Most regular civilians are fine with the gun control laws in place now, but these regular civilians aren’t the ones going on killing sprees. The select few that do go snap and shoot up schools don’t have the same feelings towards these laws. No matter how many rules you put in place these people will find a way to get a gun and achieve what they want. These are the same people who would come into your house in the middle of the night and kill your family. What do you do then if guns are banned? If you have guns to protect your family and people find out you go to jail, but if you don’t have guns your family could be in grave danger. Like Brandyn said banning guns or more restricted gun lawswould simply control the common citizens of the United States. We are rule followers and abide by the laws. Criminals are criminals, and there will always be criminals.And I also agree with what Dan said that hand guns or hunting rifles, but I think assault rifles should be limited to military use only, there is no need for those in regular society. Maybe instead of putting more gun laws in place what we need are metal detectors and an armed officer at the front of every school building that would be ready for action if an armed person were ever to walk into the building.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your last statement about putting metal detectors and an armed officer in the front of every school because based on our school alone, anyone can just walk in with a gun or another type of weapon which would not be detected. I also agree with you and Brandyn about criminals being criminals and that even if we make gun laws stricter, criminals will still find a way to obtain a weapon if they want to. Even though people say we should not have to resort to putting officers and metal detectors in schools, I think we should because then criminals would have a much harder time getting their weapons into schools which would help prevent these massacres from occurring.
DeleteI agree with only parts of this. I completely agree on the idea of controlling assault rifles. There really is no need for an average Joe to own an assault rifle. Now, does this mean that he can't find some way to get one? No, of course not. Chances are, if someone was really going to get a weapon and shoot someone, they probably would have planned out exactly how they would go about doing so before planning the actual shooting. Plus, a large number of the people who execute these massacres are mentally unstable. I think that a check on mental health should be included in background checks for owning a weapon. It seems to me only logical. As for the other point of protection, I'm forced to have a sticking point here. An armed officer, yes, is a good idea. Metal detectors, however, are not. Yes, in theory, they are wonderful. Scan everyone who walks through the door. HOWEVER, they are expensive and would cause massive bottlenecks at entrances, thus compounding the problem. Think about how we would manage to get almost the entire population of Wahconah, including the entire staff, through metal detectors before school starts. Think about the people who get there BY BUS only five or so minutes before the bell rings. As a security solution, metal detectors are inefficient and not appropriate for schools. There is no 'one-size-fits-all' answer to this problem. A criminal will be a criminal, with or without strict gun control laws.
DeleteAs a hunter, I am for the most part a gun rights activist. I believe in the right to own and carry a gun. I grew up with guns, and took the mandatory safety class in order to be able to carry a non-concealed firearm (not handgun). Living in Massachusetts, that process was hard enough. In order to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon, you must be personally approved by the chief of police, along with extensive paperwork and approvals.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very strict policy, and I actually approve of it. I think it should be more of a federal policy mostly because it keeps guns out of the hands of ignorant would be gun owners who don't know how to safely keep a gun.
In regards to this awful tragedy, it raises the question to me of why do civilians need assault rifles. I've actually known a few people who either own assault rifles or their dads do. Their reason why they have them is it is "fun to shoot", and in case some type of war erupts around their own house. To me it seems the second reason is preposterous and losing the first is a very small price to pay, if it reduces the deaths in a shooting like Friday's. Had assault rifles been illegal, there would be a much higher chance that the killer would have went in with just the two handguns.
Finally, I've heard the argument of interpreting the 2nd amendment based on the times it was written. Meaning, the right to bear a musket. It's true our founding fathers didn't anticipate the development of guns. But realistically it seems fair that it should be legal to own whatever a would be "intruder" is likely to have. It's hard to defend your family from a man wielding a semi-automatic handgun when you have a musket. Until these illegal guns on the street are limited, it just isn't safe to take them out of the hands of the typical innocent civilian.
I agree with this post. Although i dont know much about guns, I think the gun laws now are plenty strict and do not have to be changed. On the other hand, its difficult to say if making assault rifles illegal will even prevent disasters. For the most part, the people who obtian guns legally are the people who use them the way they should. The only time we ever hear about a disaster involving guns is when kids steal their parents guns or someone bought a gun illegally. I dont think changing the gun laws will help to prevent these from happening. As we know, when something is illegal, people still manage to get their hands on it just as easy as when it was legal. The only way you could assure that disasters with guns would stop would be to make all guns illegal. Unfotunately, even then we would still have problems. In the end, their is not much that we can do with the law that will help to prevent disasters like we have just experienced or other ones that are completely diffrent. Now we have to move on to changing diffrent aspects such as the number of ammunition that guns can carry and keeping guns in the right hands as Tim stated above.
Delete- Nick Montferret
Nate,
DeleteI agree that it is important to realize that the constitution was made to be a "timeless" document and that it shouldn't always be read literally. Back in the day it was assumed that a person breaking into your house would have a musket and so should you. It is ignorant to believe that the founding fathers wouldn't approve matching our "enemy's" weapons. I don't believe however that everyone should be carrying around semi-automatic guns.
~Holly
Nate has certainly considered the variety of gun owners, and their purposes for owning a firearm. My dad is a hunter and so are some of my neighbours, they are all of good mental health and had to work hard to gain licensing. So it certainly isn't the laws that need reforming, the work it takes to get those weapons legally weeds out the less responsible users. Nate also mentioned the fairness in what one has versus what an intruder is armed with. His thinking is true, how can one feel right with a handgun when someone is out there with an assault rifle. The key is eliminating any chance one would have a weapon of that capability, as already stated by many, it is really unnecessary. Yes, impossible to avoid every problem, limiting the chance is what the focus is now.
DeleteIt seems it has been easy for those unlicensed to acquire a weapons. The problem is not how to obtain a license, but how these guns are tracked and even perhaps how often. However, there are some unforeseen consequences as we heard Friday. The man took the weapon from his mother, how she stowed it away is beyond matters of law. Education and caution is key.
First off I would like to say that the Second Amendment says that Americans have the right to bare arms because Americans needed to be bale to defend themselves if the government overstepped its authority. In all of the cases of school shootings these assault weapons have been used in all the wrong ways. I don't think it's right for anyone to be able to have a gun. Many people out there aren't mentally stable. While others seem to act spur of the moment. In situations like these, the thought of anyone being able to own a weapon is terrifying. I believe that there should be stricter laws on gun control, not in just Massachusetts or Connecticut but every where in the U.S. There must be a stricter way of keeping track of semi-automatic guns that only the police or military personal should use. I honestly believe that the only people who should be allowed to use such weapons should be those who actually need it like the police or military. When it comes to hunting why can't they use bows and arrows? Is there any way to allow only those who are mentally stable that hunt to use guns? I just think that from all these massacres and school shootings that we should learn something and go forward with executing plans to keep our country as safe as possible.
ReplyDeleteAlanna,
DeleteI agree with most of your reasoning. Although it is easier to reciece liceneses to have weapons in some states more than others, most states do not check the mental state of the individual whom is purchasing a weapon. Although the second ammendment states that citizens are able to bear arms to protect themselves from the gorvernment, those are not quite the circumstances anymore. However, many use guns to hunt for recreation, I do still believe that they should be able to have this right. The only thing I would change about this is the way in which they obtain these weapons. Like you said, miliarty and police should be the only ones able to use assault weapons I agree but on the other hand, not all gun laws should be taken away, just made stricter perhaps
-Beth
Ok so I am 100% for being able to own a gun. I don't believe that "bad guys" are ever going to play by the rules and we should have the right to defend ourselves and our families. That’s like saying if we ban alcohol everyone will just stop drinking (because that worked so well the first time). I think that politicians are jumping to the gun control debate because that's what the people want to hear. In examining recent mass murders, almost all of them involved a "mentally ill" person. Because of recent changes in the attitudes of Americans, trying to blame the mentally ill is a big no-no. While people find it offensive, it is after all a fact. I'm not saying that we should lock-up anyone who is special needs because those aren't the people who are doing these terrible crimes. A common misconception is that there is one type of "mentally ill". In my psychology class we studied over 25 sub categories of mental illness and there were several specific diseases in each one.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting thing is to compare gun violence in our country and in others. In 2006, there were TWO deaths by homicide involving guns in Japan. This was for 2 reasons, one it is almost impossible to get a gun and it's basically illegal to even touch one, and two the mentally ill of that country are brutally locked away in prison like buildings. Do we need to go to those extremes? No way. But should we see what other countries are doing to decrease gun violence? Absolutely.
~Holly
For all of my friends who are suggesting compromise, here's another thought I had on the subject. People are killed everyday by drunk drivers. So, do we outlaw the cars or the alcohol? Oh wait...drunk driving is already against the law. So this brings us to deciding whether we put governors on the vehicles to minimize their maximum speed, or if we limit the alcohol percentage for all liquor. My point is, people are going to break rules (they already do). There are sick people out there, some are alcoholics and some are mentally unstable. There are other social responsibilities we need to address well before someone picks up a gun of any capacity. Creating more rules for the rule followers is not the answer.
ReplyDeleteGun control has been a topic that no person has yet to agree on. In light of recent events, Friday's shooting took a toll on Americans everywhere and all fingers are pointed at the second amendment. Despite this right allowing us to bear arms, I dont believe that it's clear enough to dictate whether or not we should carry them around in public. However my personal opinion says otherwise- I don't believe that the second amendment was created for us to carry around guns down the street. Yes, people believe carrying around guns is for saftey reasons but I believe the second amendment is meant to secure the right of people having the right to own guns in their homes, not walking down Main Street.
ReplyDeleteI agree when Bintu says that the second amendment "is meant to secure the right for people having the right to own guns in their homes". With this said I believe Guns are not the threat, people are. I am totally against banning firearms but am for stricter laws such as how the firearms are stored, background checks and stiffer penalties for those who commit crimes. Like I said fix the problem which is humans not firearms. If firearms are taken from the honest people only criminals and sick people in this world will have them. That is why it always goes back to this one quote 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people'.
DeleteBintu is right. Like I said in my post, I do think people should be allowed to have guns, I just don't agree with any civilian owning an automatic weapon, for instance. As for what Mr. Shannon said, I'm not sure stricter laws as to how firearms are stored would help much. Of course, it may help a little, but it would only help if people actually followed such gun laws. It's not like authorities can just knock on your door and inspect your house to see how your weapons are kept up. Can they? Like Mr. Shannon said, " If firearms are taken from the honest people only criminals and sick people in this world will have them." However, I have to say that guns do kill people. The people only make the decision to kill people with guns.
DeleteWithout reading anyone's posts yet, I will say this: I think people should be allowed to own and buy guns, as the second amendment states, however I do not think there is any reason for people to own any type of automatic or semiautomatic gun. There's simply no legitimate reason to. I have also looked at states who have laws where people are allowed to carry concealed weapons. While that might sound a bit horrifying, I can see the reasoning behind it. The crime rates in such states are much lower than in states who do not allow just anyone to carry a concealed weapon. Anyone who decides to rob a store or jump some guy on the street would think twice, knowing they might have a gun. As for those who have lost their minds and go shooting random people, there are always going to be such people. I'm not sure if the allowance of everyone carrying concealed weapons would make everything better or not, but I know that regardless of this fact, there will always be mass shootings. The only thing we can do is try our best to keep things like the Sandy Hook Massacre, Columbine Massacre, Aurora Theater Shooting, and anything else of the sort from happening again. This is a very difficult time for us, especially after Obama's speech at the memorial at Sandy Hook; he has pointed out that there have been four occurrences like this since he has become president. I see stricter gun laws coming our way. But would that really do anything? Who knows, maybe we SHOULD all be allowed to carry guns. Maybe then more people would be saved from these things. But I could be very wrong. The whole thing just sucks.
ReplyDeleteI hate to be a scrooge, but no matter what is done, there will always still be shootings! I think that it is a good to have restrictions on the 2nd amendment, like FOX News reported. However, I think this will only make a difference in a 'perfect' world. There are still place out there, i.e. the black market, where people can get these guns. Also, not every gun is going to be taken away from owners that is capable of firing more than 10 rounds at once, and certainly not automatic ones. People will argue that these guns are safe with themselves and simply not give them up. Also, not every gun that is out there is recorded in a data base as sold. There are so many shady ways to get them. I could even get one if I wanted. You just have to know the right people. In the wake of the shootings at Sandy Hook, I know it is hard to argue that these guns shouldn't be taken away after so many children lost their lives. To reiterate my point, this can happen at any time any place. We should face this fact and continue on about our lives. You can make laws more strict, but there will be the ones who rebel, and you can't change this. I say go ahead and make laws that ban certain guns, but don't be surprised when in 5 years from now there is another massacre. It just can't be stopped. The entire idea of stopping these horrific shootings is a fantasy.
ReplyDeleteYour grave no nonsense post merits respect because it does express some solid facts. Gun control is very hard to do efficiently. But, I believe if you were to look at a country like china or one like Japan you'd see that gun control is possible. When you think about the fact that since Columbine there has been 31 school shootings you see that this is not something we will see in 5 years. It's only a matter of months before statistically the next one is attempted. Making gun laws stricter would over time slow down the inevitable. That's what we try to do during lockdown drills in school, slow down the shooters destructive path. Yes they will happen, but we can help slow them down rather than just let them happen with the hopes it's not our school or our community or a friend of ours. That's plain selfish.
DeleteThe second amendment seems to be a very controversial issue. I would like to think that citizens should have a right to own a gun for the purpose of protection. I don't think that civilians should be allowed to have semiautomatic rifles.. It is not nessarary to own a gun with that much power. However, I don't think that stricter gun laws can help the situation. When people act in a desperate way they will use anything as a weapon. Besides, it is not the guns that kill people. People kill people and in some rare cases, animals kill people.
ReplyDeleteI agree here on all counts. If they have a permit, citizens should be able to carry a weapon on them for any reason they choose. Of course not everyone will worry about these laws if they are going to commit a crime. Yet increasing the strength of the laws will not stop these criminals from doing such things. Therefore, I think the current laws in place are sufficient in "protecting" our nation.
Delete-Jess
The Right to Bare Arms
ReplyDeleteThe second amendment should with no doubt protect the right for citizens to carry firearms in public and should also continue to protect the right to individual firearm ownership within the gun owner’s home. New York Mayor Bloomberg said “I don’t think the Founding Fathers had the idea that every man, woman and child could carry an assault weapon.” I would first like to kindly point out that to be able to carry a firearm in public in you must have a LTC card which you can’t get until your 21 and you have to have a criminal free record. No man or woman can purchase any firearm or ammunition without an FID or LTC card thus no child would be able to have possession to carry ammunition or a handgun let alone an assault rifle. I feel as though Mr. Bloomberg’s comment is purposely misleading.
“No set of law can eliminate evil from the world.” said by President Obama. He is correct that no law will ever diminish every evil act that is done in the world. In August 1, 1966 at the University of Texas there was the Clock Tower Shootings, April 20, 1999, two students went into Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado and killed 12 students ages 14-18 as well as a teacher, April 16, 2007, on the Virginia Tech campus in Blacksburg, Virginia was a shooting that killed 32 people, the list of school shootings goes on and on. Those people that committed the despicable acts broke numerous laws and creating more laws wouldn’t have prevented them from doing what they did. If you do not have the right to carry guns in public or have then within your home because of these shootings you would be left defenseless and vulnerable against the sick, twisted person that is harming or threatening you.
Payton Part 1
After a deadly theater mass shooting earlier this year in Aurora, Colorado CNN presented a survey to the public that resulted in 76% of survey takes saying there should be gun restrictions. The only information that CNN collected from that survey is how many people had a knee-jerk reaction to the shooting, not to mention that CNN is left leaning and are known for having anti gun views. The tragic event that took place in Newtown is heartbreaking. I strongly believe that Adam Lanza (if still alive) should have been rightfully punished for what he did but he should be the only one punished for his actions. The United States should not pass gun restricting laws and punish 300 million people that fallow all the gun laws that are already in place.
ReplyDeleteWhat should be restricted are violent video games, movies and shows that desensitize men, woman and kids. These shows and games use firearms in a negative way. They make the viewers think that shooting people and blowing up buildings is cool and exciting. The movies and games portray firearms as weapons while many gun owners and users (myself included) think of firearms as a tool and equipment for hunting, sport and self-defense. Anything can be a weapon if you use that idem in that way. Sen Liebermen states that these games make “vulnerable young men, particularly to be more violent.” That statement couldn’t be truer. I believe that the legislature should look into something else before they toy around with our second amendment right. The law states that anyone with a criminal record will not ever be able to purchase any firearm. While doing the background check to see if the owner has a criminal record or not they should look to see if the owner is diagnosed with a mental illness. A majority of the people that committed those school shootings or any kind of public shooting in general have some sort of mental illness. They should not be able to buy guns or ammunition from any store anywhere. If you live with someone who has a mental illness then there should be some procedures and regulations on how you should to properly store your firearms and ammunition. I know that in at least Massachusetts you cannot legally access people’s medical records so maybe the legislature should look into modifying that. President Obama said “No set law can eliminate evil from the world, but that can’t be an excuse for inaction.” I think that this is a way to take action to try and lower the amount of public shootings there are in the country without threatening our second amendment right as a United States citizen.
Here is a website that you can go on to see how many gun laws and regulations that is already in place in Massachusetts. If you go on the website and look at each one you’ll see how much gun owners in this state had to jump through in order to practice their second amendment right.
http://www.mass.gov/eopss/firearms-reg-and-laws/gun-laws/
Sincerely,
Payton