The 2nd Amendment clearly states,
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
After the Supreme Court overturned Washington DC's ban on handguns, guns rights advocates are looking to repeal the City of Chicago's ban on handguns as well. Although the 2nd Amendment states that our right to own weapons shall not be limited, some citizens feel that there should be some "reasonable" restrictions for gun ownership. Please read the attached Newsweek article about the possible gun ban in Chicago and respond to the following question(s).
Should American citizens have the right to unrestricted gun ownership or should the government place restrictions on certain types of weapons?
62 comments:
Let me start off by restating part of the 2nd Amendment-->"being necessary to the security of a free state". People do not need a bazooka to be secure when a burglar breaks into their houses. The main purpose of this amendment was to provide safe and secure environment for the families around the country. This was not written to give people the right to own a destructive weapon like military tank. I believe every citizens should have the right to bear arms. I also believe that handguns are acceptable because they are not as threatening and destructive compare to a machine gun. They also serve to provide secure environment for the owners.
Obviously the 2nd Amendment doesn't mention any limitation of weapons. However there are implied(not written) parts of the Constitution that everyone should understand. Just because the Constitution doesn't mention it doesn't necessarily mean it is not implied. It is important that we do not look at the Constitution word by word, but understand the main points that it is trying to achieve. The right to bear arms will still apply to every citizens of the U.S, but there still should be limitation on certain types of weapons.
Gun control, it’s a rather difficult decision for me to decide where I stand. On one side of things I feel like people should be able to have a gun because it’s not guns that kill people its people that kill people. Although people shouldn’t have the need to have all the big fancy guns that are used in the military or the police or swat. No one should feel the need that they have to go out and buy this big and powerful gun to protect them. If they do they are probably doing something illegal. This is where gun control comes in. If our government can’t decide if the big fancy guns should be legal or not they should look at how many problems they have caused. The government should apply some kind of restriction to whom and how people can get guns. I feel like the lack of gun control that the government has enforced that they have made getting a gun as easy as buying bread. Although it is not a simple issue to resolve on one end you have the NRA and on the other you have a family whos family member has been hurt or killed by a shooting.
I feel as though the right to bear arms should be restricted to a certain extent. In my opinion, people should be allowed firearms, but only simple pistols and handguns rather than automatic weapons. After all, large rifles are not "necessary to the security of a free state".
As we've unfortunately seen with certain cases, ownership of automatic weapons can lead to unnecesary violence. Regular citizens don't need the same sort of weapons that the US military uses. Of course, keep in mind that the constitution was written during a time when regular people could be called to act as the US militia, as well as the fact that guns were not as sophisticated and potentially deadly.
With the evolving standards of decency in our community, I would say that there should definitely be some sort of 'reasonable' restrictions on gun ownership. However, people should also have the choice to own a small firearm for their own safety as well as 'just in case'.
American citizen should have the right to gun ownership with several government restrictions. Gun ownership has always been a dearly held right of American citizens and is protected by the constitution, however as times and technology change, so must the interpretation of this document. I believe that the right of citizens to own handguns, rifles, and weapons of medium size is protected by the constitution, but citizens should not be allowed to own highly destructive weapons like AK-47s, bazookas, flame throwers, and grenade launchers. These large weapons are not necessary for personal protection and are very dangerous to public welfare in the wrong hands.
Rifles, handguns, and hunting weapons are used by the public to protect themselves and also engage in sports such as hunting. Large weapons on the other hand are not generally used by the public for recreation or protection, their legalization then encourages criminals and terrorists to gain control of and use a destructive weapon in attacks against individuals and our country as a whole. The rights of citizens to own weapons is protected by the constitution but this should be limited to medium sized weapons as large weapons are not generally used by citizens and would only encourage crimes by terrorists. They provide a legal way to prepare for a crime without breaking the law.
Kira Headrick
I believe that the citizens of the United States of America should be able to own guns with some restrictions. There should definitely be limits to the number of people who can own guns, the type of guns people own, in what states people can own guns, and so on and so forth. For example, in a high crime rate state, there is more logic in letting less people own guns and applying more intense qualifications for people who can bear arms.
When it comes to the second amendment, the Constitution is clearly states that citizens have the right to bear arms. However, back when the Constitution was ratified in 1787, the country was slightly less dangerous. That's not to say there was danger or criminals out there, just that there were less psychotic people in everyday life.
There should certainly be more restricted qualifications for gun and arms ownership. This prevents unqualified and potentially harmful people to gain control of arms, endangering everyday life. However, it is beneficial for the citizens of America to be able to feel secure in their own homes with their families. With gun ownership, there definitely comes a security within a person that themselves as well as those around them are safe from attack and secure with their families.
American should have the right to bear arms, but there should be some restrictions on that right. The purpose of the right to bear arms is to give the people of the United States protection. Giving people multiple guns, or giving them guns other than a handgun to protect themself is bother odd and not nessicary. When the constitution was written they people of that time did nto have to advanced weaponry that we now have today. It was not in there intention to give people mutiple machine guns just for there saftey.
The gun is only supposed to be used for protection NOTHING else so why have anything other than just one hand gun. Even having just one handgun can cause problems like accidental shootings or kids playing with guns. If just one small gun causes so many issues imagine what things would happe to a person that has multiple machine guns.Therefore people should be allowed the right to bear arms but certain restrictions must be put to what extent the follow this amendment.
I think that American residents should have a limited right to bear arms. A small handgun should be okay, a mass murder machine gun should not be okay. The truth is, if the American Government places too heavy restrictions on guns, that's only going to hurt family households of whom many would think it too bothersome to go out and try to buy a gun. Criminals, on the other hand, are most likely more willing to spend time to get a gun better suited for killing.
Having restrictions on guns is much better than just letting people buy guns whenever they feel like it, as then there would be significantly more murder cases. However, tightening gun control too much would result in families having no protection if a murderer were to kill them. (Murdrers can always eventually find a gun somewhere). In the end, I believe that having some restrictions on guns is necessary but going overboard results in a negative effect.
~Vivian Chen
I believe that the right to bear arms should be limited. People should be allowed to own simple firearms, such as pistols and hunting rifles, but there is no need for automatics or artillery. As “g.jeong” pointed out, the 2nd Amendment states “being necessary to the security of a free state” with regards to guns, and weapons such as M16’s and missile launchers are not necessary unless the US government suddenly decided they were declaring war against you or your state, in which case any stockpile you may have gathered would not be enough. In addition, if someone broke into your house or is robbing a convenience store, an assault rifle is not needed and a simple pistol would suffice for protective measures. Moreover, there have been some cases in which people with malevolent intentions have been able to obtain small firearms and hurt others, and although that situation is already bad, think about how it would be compounded if there were no regulations on gun control and the deranged person had an AK-47. Removing all regulations on gun control would encourage violence, so a reasonable balance between personal security and Constitutional rights is limiting people to small firearms.
I agree with all the people above me, although I am still half and half on this issue. The 2nd amendment gives people the right to own weapons to keep themselves secure. People should be granted access to pistols, shot guns .etc, but not AK-47's, Sniper Rifle .etc.
Adding onto that, in order for someone to own a gun, they must be put into an extensive criminal record check. We cannot sell weapons to the bad guys, wanting to hurt people in the public. In other words, in order to own gun, one must have a clean history.
The thing is however, that when I think of the 2nd amendment, it makes me shiver of concern. People who own a gun are protected by the 2nd amendment and from my standpoint, guns are a deadly toy to own. It can put someone's life at risk. This is just me. I feel that people who own a gun must be very responsible and smart about using a gun (in this case, not killing people).
The constitution gives people the right to own a gun, however the guns must be regulated. Why even own an AK-47 in the first place? What can you do with it besides putting it in a glass cabinet. Heck, there's a difference between owning one for a war or as a hobby.
The constitution guarantees citizens the right to bear arms, but the constitution was written in the late 1700's. While citizens should have the right to own guns, there need to be limitations. The weapons of today are much more advanced than they were when the constitution was written. Citizens should not be allowed to own bazookas and extremely dangerous weapons. A lack of limitations leads to more violent crimes, and more ways to commit them. Automatic weapons are not necessary for self defense. If people are purchasing them,there is large potential that they aren't going use them for a good reason.
Gun control is extremley important.Backround checks should be done on everyone purchasing a gun, the more dangerous the gun the more extensive the backround check.Citizens should have the right to own guns, but within resonable limits.
When the Framers built this country they had in mind a protected people who could defend themselves if our country was infiltrated. They wanted people to bear arms. There should be restrictions though on what types of guns to be sold. Automatic and Assult weapons are already prohibited for civilian use, and they should be kept that way. Our right to own firearms is under attack by our new government. Our new cabinet believes that guns kill people, no people kill people. Guns don't just get up and walk about popping off rounds.
Background checks are required for everybody, and people who have a record of crimes that could be committed with a gun they are refused a ownership of that gun. We have the right to bear arms for a reason.
In my opinion, I think that there is a certain extent that gun control can go to. A certain kind of gun is ok, like a hand gun but there should not be guns, that are semi atomatic guns unless if they are authorites that have the guns. If the government chose to limit the amount of gun control I think that some issues would take place there. First, I think that criminals would break into places and steal a gun, which woud make for more crime which is not what we want. Criminlas also might steal something more powerful and more effective than a hand gun.
On the other hand, we want to keep our country and states safe and clean. We want citizens to feel safe in America and not think of America as a gun country. Again if we state the Second Amendment, "being necceasary to the security of a free state." People can still protect theirselves without guns. There is really no reason to own a gun unless you hunt or are a hunter.
In the end, we should limit the amount of gun control to a low amount, so that we don't have large issues with criminals stealing guns and large issues with people owning guns that they don't need for a good purpose.
The second amendment to the rights to bear arms has been talked about in the media a lot lately in a controversial way. The second amendment states that people have the right to being necessary to the security of a free state. That statement has been twisted around a lot lately, seeing all of the weapon scandals going on in our world today with the Gilbert Arenas and Plaxico Burres. I personally believe that there should be a restriction on guns, but not completely outlaw them. For a regular civilian looking to buy a weapon, there should be strict background checks(which there are now, but stricter) and the person must have a valid reason for the purchase of the deadly weapon. Also, the types of guns should be restricted to pistols and shotguns, except in the case of the military. The world we live in today is filled with violence and death, and a lot of that you can blame on gun control. In my personal opinion, I believe that the right to bear arms should for the most part, be outlawed in the United States.
Gun control has and always will be a controversial issue as long as there are democrats and republicans. Although I cannot speak for the Founding Fathers, I am assuming that when the Second Amendment was passed, it was not meant to include bazooka's and 50 calibar machine guns capable of taking out aircraft. I say this becasue such weapons were not invented until long after the 2nd Amendment was passed. How were the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment supposed to know the advances in technology soon to ensue??? Thinking back into their time, there were unnacurate slow reloading muskets, very far from modern day mini guns which fire hundreds of rounds per second effortlessly. I think it is a safe assumtion that bazookas and mini guns were not considered during the drafting and passing of the 2nd amendment. We also must focus on the entirity of the amendment not petty details. The amendment was created to ensure the US's citizens could protect themselves from anything that threatened them, wether it be a crazy government dictator and a deranged burglers. By allowing the use of a resonable weapon, people can feel safer if they live in bad parts of town and if someone comes to rob you and pull a gun on them they are more likely to think about running the other way rather than trying to steal stuff from you.
Another argument for the 2nd Amendment is that there is a HUGE!!!! black market for guns of all sizes and shapes. By depriving law abiding citizens of the right to bear arms, you are doing nothing but leaving them un armed while drug cartels and their buddies are loaded down with semi automatice rifiles. Not a good idea in my opinion. By making the protective guns illegal lawmakers would be acomplishing nothing because people who kill people and cause problems with guns, the majority of them did not legally buy the gun and odds are they do not have a gun license in the first place. So by restricting gun ownership all we would be doing is punishing the people who do things the right way, instead we should be cracking down on the black market and drug cartels and street gangs, when all the guns are taken away from those such groups I believe we would see a MASSIVE decline in violence involving a gun.
Personally, it is hard for me to decide which side of this controversial issue I am on. In one respect, it is not right for people to choose where to draw the line on the constitution. If someone decides that people cannot have all of their 2nd amendment rights, then it would be hard to say what other small freedoms the government could take away. Although someone might say that people can use handguns and such to protect themselves, the 2nd amendment was also created so that people could protect themselves against their government. Thus, if the government has the tools to take out an aircraft, the rules should not be any different for citizens.
However, I do not think that the founding fathers had the types of guns we have today in mind when they wrote the constitution, because they did not have the same technology as we do today. I believe that not everyone has the right to any gun of their choice, but there are certain guns that would be okay. For example, a handgun would be appropriate for defending oneself, while a machine gun would not.
Once again, I am right in the middle on this issue, and I am not sure which side I take on gun control. In one respect, I believe it is for the good of the people that the possession of guns is limited, but it also has a possibility of violating the 2nd amendment.
Gun Control is one of the most controversial and is among the most popular issues in the United States Government today.
Some people may argue that you need protection and that the Government cannot take away your Second Amendment rights. These people believe that the Government should stay out of their business (a well known conservative standpoint).
I can see the reason behind their argument. Yes, using a firearm for protection should be legal. However, I believe that "protection" should mean a small handgun, not a AK-47 and other weapons that have more "umph".
So my answer is yes, The Government should allow U.S. citizens to protect themselves with guns, but certain restrictions, which will be heavily enforced.
In general, I do not believe that citizens should have the right to bear arms unless strict restrictions and careful considerations of the motives behind each person wanting to own a gun are scrutinized. Back when the Constitution was written, technology was not nearly as advanced as it is now and there were not specific restrictions set on owning a gun. However, now that we have guns that are more powerful, I believe that it is necessary to have restrictions because according to the constitution, citizens have the right to bear arms whether we personally agree with this stance or not.
The circumstances that allow people to own a gun include hunting and recreational purposes that do not involve harm to another person in anyway what so ever. These people would also need to take further precautions that include keeping the gun in such a place that children or those not allowed to use the gun can reach it.
Other circumstances may include living in an area where violence is common and the gun would give the person a sense of safety, and handling a gun out of safety for others, where that person has a risk of almost zero that another persons life would unnecesarily be put in danger. Other situations similar to this, i believe are proof that these specific people can own a gun. Overall, i think that if we are to allow citizens the right to bear arms, then there need to be strict and specific restrictions and qualifications for that person.
I believe American citizens should have the right to bear arms but their should be definite restrictions so that there would be unlimited freedom which could cause problems. I feel that the people should be able to have guns for personal protection, especially the recent CU case.
The limits I was referring to was were typical things like, what type of weapons they were. For example, a semi-automatic weapon is not needed just to protect yourself. A pistol or a small handgun is enough. In addition, I think that the number of guns should be limited because it's not like one needs more than 3 guns in on house. The reputation people have is important too, but that is already looked at. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment does apply still in 2010 and people should be able to own guns but there should be restrifctions.
The entire point of the second amendment is for people to be able to own and bear arms. This means, whether you like it or not, that people can get and should be able to get whatever they want. If they have enough money, they should be able to buy a tank. I see nothing wrong with that. I am in favor of preventing firearms from falling into the hands of the impaired, and for there to be background checks. I say that the Framers knew that there would be problems in our government, and that we should be able to protect ourselves. they knew that there would eventually be a revolution, like before, and that we would need a way to protect ourselves from our government, be it tyrannical or otherwise. Furthermore, if we take away the right to bear arms, the criminals who already have weapons don't care and will have firearms, usually high powered assault rifles or machine guns. If there was a violent murderer in a city, you would want there to be the right to bear arms, beacause those citizens who carry are the ones who are a massive deterrent against crime, and the one who are saving lives should it occur. In australia, they destroyed all firearms in major cities. Crime rates flew up a stunning 300% in the next year. The government was baffled as to how this could have happened. You don't want to let this happen. Even if you don't own or don't like guns, you should still be in favor. They are protecting you, if only by detterring the criminals. The police are never fast enough to save you. If you really want to protect yourself, go get a shotgun. don't cut off your constitutional right and the best way to defend yourself.
The second amendment protects the people's right to own a gun. Placing restrictions or other safety measures does not violate the second amendment. The amendment allows for firearms necessary for security. Restrictions placed are only there to limit the availability of weapons of mass destruction. A machine gun is not neccessary to protect ones family, or for hunting. Allowing people to acquire them allows others with violent intents easier accessiblity to these weapons, potentially causing harm to many. The founding fathers intent in establishing the second amendment was to allow people means to protect themselves. Restrictions to prevent people with a violent history of acquiring firearms does not violate the founding father's intent. Therefore, the second amendment is not violated by placing safety measures to protect the public.
I think that if citizens are allowed to own guns their should be, for obvious reasons, more restrictions. Semi-automatic weapons such as handguns should be allowed but automatic weapons such as machine guns should not. As Mr. Niedringhaus said today in class that if someone really wants to harm someone or a group of people then they will most likely be able to do that whether it was legal or illegal. However if we make more restrictions on gun ownership then it can only help the chance of catastrophe such as Virginia Tech or Columbine not to happen again.
Though I believe that people should be allowed to own guns, actually obtaining one should be a difficult and detailed process. The second Amendment specifies that Americans have to right to gun ownership. Because of this, I think people should be premitted to have guns. However, the process needs to be stricter. When someone attempts to purchase a gun, there should be a deatailed procedure. For example, the government needs to do a thorough back ground check and that person should under-go a psyche evalutaion. This will confirm or deny whether this person is responsible enough to care for a gun.
Though the 2nd Amendment states that Americans should be able to own guns, I also believe that there should be some restrictions. For example, a person should only be able to own at max 2 guns, and the weapons cannot be ridiculous (like a machine gun).
American citizens should have the right to bear arms, but there should be limits. Guns available to the public are only ment for hunting, and to feel secure. But, we do not live in a perfect world, and if these weapons can be put in just about anyones hands, some people will abuse the system and use them for illegal purposes, and cause harm or even death to another person. There is no way to garanty complete safety, but there are ways to make America a safer place, and still give people the right to bear arms. Anyone with interests in purchasing a gun should have a strict background check, and mental check. This will prevent alot of guns from getting into the wrong hands. There should also be limits on how many guns one can own, what types of guns, where they can carry the gun, etc..
I do not think that the constitution is very relevent to american citizens bearing arms because when they wrote it, they had no idea weaponry would become so unbeleivable complex and dangerous to the public. Things have changed alot, and with this change, the constitution must evolve to fit the standards of modern life.
I think that americans should obviously have the right to own guns. however this is only to some extent... Americans should be made to go through a much more pain staking process in order to obtain heavier weapons than simply a handgun or rifle...i also believe that the counter-argument to this is that if there is a crazed murder he can still kill alot of people with a rifle. However I believe that if someone is truly hell-bent on killing a large amount of people it wont matter if you have a restriction on gun control because they will still be able to illegally purchase a weapon and carry out their plans no matter how evil or sinister they might be. So putting a ban on gun control just seems like it would serve no purpose so you might aswell give the people more freedoms.
i think that people should be allowed to protect themselves but allowing people to own destructive weapons is not protecting themselves. If someone owns a bazooka to "protect" themselves, and sets it off in danger, it will cause more harm than protecting the person with was probably blown up in the process. I'm very against anyone owning a gun but i do think that it is a right that should not be taken away.
I think that there should be even more limitations restrictions to owning a gun but people should never be deprived of their right to bear arms.
Gun ownership should be restricted in some way, like no minors, former criminals, or mentally disabled people should be able to own guns. They should be required to get lessons and have a background check before getting a license to own a gun. That being said, I believe that overall bans on guns would not help the situation because the people who shoot people would find a gun anyways through the black market, or illegally. Thus it is important that the people can own guns to protect themselves from these people. Also it is not necessary to own military grade guns just to protect yourself, so these guns should be outlawed.
I believe that poeple in the United States should have the right to gun ownership, but that there should be certain restrictions. I believe that everyone should be able to protect themselves and their family with a gun but only with a handgun. A handgun in my eyes is a great protection for a person and is reasonable. What is NOT reasonable is for one to own lets say a machine gun. A machine gun is a lot more lethal of a gun than a handgun and this gun can easily harm others. Also, it is easy to be inaccurate with a machine gun and if you were trying to protect your family with this gun, you could accidently harm them, with its inaccurate type spread.
Another certan restriction that should be put with gun ownership is that you can only own a gun and use it for protection in your own home. In other words, you can not ever be having a gun with you when you are out in public. I believe that if this certain and necessary restriction was put into place, many gun shootings and violence would decrease overall. In addition, if these restrictions were put into place, I do not believe that it would be violating the 2nd Amendment's orignal intent, which was to protect the lives of American citizens.
In the end, i believe that the government should place restrictions on gun ownership, because by doing so, the government would actually be serving the 2nd Amendment's orignal intent of protecting American citizens.
The American citizen should be allowed to carry small guns with controls and restrictions. For example, one control could be that the gun would have to be under a certain size and caliber and that the person should have to go through a thorough background check before being able to buy and carry the gun because even if the gun is small, it can still hurt someone.
I believe that the person carrying the gun should have to meet three requirements: (1) a thorough background check, (2) education on how to handle a gun, and (3) a permit issued by a law enforcement agency, such as a police department. I believe that these requirements will help to make sure that the gun is going into the hands of someone who can handle it correctly and safely.
I also believe that there should be a limit on the amount of people having guns. I don’t think that it is a good idea for everyone to be carrying a gun because guns create fear and fear makes people react differently than how they would normally react.
I believe that American citizens should be allowed to carry small guns with controls and restrictions.
I think that you should be able to carry and own guns but you have to go through lots of backround searches and a lot of other stuff as well. Those who are hunters should be able to use them but they have to show that they are mentally stable and that there only purpose is for hunting. Also you can be able to keep them at home but only one per home if you want one. I think that the limitations on guns should be that you can not own anything super dangerous but just like a little one. In case you need to protect yourself or something. For those that are hunters they can own the kind of gun that you go hunting with. The article says that the conservatives say that we do have the right to bear arms but only to a certain limit. Even though guns are dangerous I do think that they are also a good thing if those who own them are trained properly on how to use them and have passed backround checks and other extensive things. So, yes there should be more restrictions on gun ownership, it should be a lot harder to own one.
American citizens should be allowed to own a variety of guns, provided that the weapons follow a strict set of guidelines and regulations. Even though the Mayor of Chicago (who is corrupt anyway)had some viable reasons for implementing a gun ban within the city, the decision will not serve as a deterrent for criminals and just gives more power to the government. The government should utilize and spread some of its power to additional problems in society, such as revamping the education system.
The Second Amendment does emphasize how a "well regulated militia" is necessary security measure in the states, but since the Constitution is a living document and has obviously changed since the Revolutionary War, there should be specific restrictions. These restrictions will demonstrate the benefit of more limitations, for the people of the United States and the City of Chicago.
I think that gun ownership should be legal, but the types of firearms people can own should be limited and background checking should be more thorough. The framers couldn't have imagined the types of guns we have today when they were writing the second amendment. Even though the second amendment doesn't say there are any restrictions, some should still be placed. Why would anyone need a rocket launcher to defend their house? They'd end up destroying half their house anyways. The more potentially dangerous guns like fully automatics should be left to law enforcement and the military, and low caliber semi automatic pistols and rifles to the public. Another thing is background checking. Even though someone has a clean slate and they seem relatively sane, it doesn't mean that they are. Background checking should require family and friends to testify for them and a psychologist's report to get a gun.
Kevin Xie
American citizen should be able to own guns but with many restrictions. I think that citizens should be able to have guns only to protect the constitution If we take away one right then who knows what will happen. Other than that I believe that a person does not need dangerous weapons. People who hunt should be able to have weapons required for hunting, but other than that a normal citizen should not be able to own a weapon. If less people own weapons than the amount of danger in this area will go down because you can not shoot someone if you do not have a gun.
I believe that the 2nd Amendment, the right to bare arms, should be limited but only to a certain amount. I think that the restrictions that our government has on it now are good because they make sure that the owner of the gun is having a gun for hunting or protection reasons and is not going to use it for any other reason. There should also be restrictions on what kind of guns citizens are allowed to carry around. I think that it should be semi-automatic and are be able to feel protected without carrying a big unsafe gun. Also, since our law enforcers carry guns, they should be the ones who protect us and there should not be any reason to carry a gun. They should be able to carry guns but to have very limited restrictions as to what the people can carry
I believe that people who live in the US have the right to protect themselves, the 2nd Amendment gives them that right. However, I think there should be heavy restrictions on weapons. Any weapon is potentially very dangerous and could end up hurting a lot of people. Any person that has a weapon should have to go through thorough mental screening tests to make sure that they will responsibly use that weapon. In my opinion, weapons do much more harm than they do protecting people. I think that the less guns that people obtain the less likely people are going to murdered every single day.
Yes, I do believe there should be heavy gun restrictions so that peace is kept in this country and less people are hurt. Personal protection is important but civilians shouldn't be able to have nuclear weapons, weapons that can do a very large amount of harm.
The second amendment was created to keep a militia that would protect the people and the country. The framers of the Constitution couldn't have imagined the weapons that have been created that are available today. Even the smallest guns are easily enough to protect yourself. This is why there should definitely be bans on certain guns.
In this case, I think that people should be able to have handguns in Chicago. In fact, people should only be able to have handguns. Even though they are still deadly weapons, they cause the least damage. Even though the second amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be abridged, it is clear that normal citizens owning guns that are as big as them wasn't who they were giving the right to bear arms to.
The Second Amendment is a tricky part of the Constitution to address. I can not deny that this Amendment clearly identifies the people's right to own a gun and protect themselves and their families against harm. However, the ability to get a gun, though difficult, it is still doable and available to a majority of the eligible population.
My opinion is favored towards the opinion of increased restriction. People are still abusing this right to bear arms. The ability to acquire a gun should be increased in difficulty. Because the increased level off damage and harm the weapons have in the current century, limitations should be clearly defined and discussed to ensure maximum protection the the people. Also the type of weapons the public is allowed to own should be restricted. Only guns for protection and hunting should be allowed, and a special permit should be required for each.
This Amendment will need to be analyzed carefully to protect citizens and their rights.
Gun ownership in the United States is a very controversial issue, and i believe there should be restrictions put in place. The level of violence in the United States is way higher than it needs to be, and a lot of that has to do with guns. If there were more limits on guns, as in the number of guns someone can own, the size of the gun, and the steps someone has to go through to get a gun, it could reduce unnecessary crimes. Guns are obtained by people in many cases for protection in areas with high crime rate, and i don't believe anything more than a handgun is needed for that circumstance. When the Constitution was written, the type of guns around were not near as dangerous as the machine guns around today. Also, if gun ownership was restricted, I think in those high crime areas, the accidental shootings of bystanders using automatic guns. If more restrictions were to be put in place, I think there should be even stricter background checks, as well as training upon receiving a gun to make sure fewer accidental killings happen. With limitations in place, citizens could still have guns, but hopefully violence using these weapons would be lowered.
I believe that Americans should most definitely have the right to bear arms. Although they may be able to own a gun, their need to be some restrictions to this. Not everyone should have a gun. Thats why we should have various checks, even though we already do have those, there should be a bit more.
I think that if we ban guns completely, the crime rate will only get worse than it already is. If something is illegal, it, for some reason, makes people want to break that law even more. So if we were to ban guns, it will just be the total opposite of what we were intending on in the first place. If we allow people to have guns, these people can protect themselves, even though there is still crime. But there always will be.
I say that you are allowed to have guns, but there definitly should be limits to what kind of gun you should own. You are allowed to have a handgun but nothing military-grade. You are not allowed to just go and get a Sniper Rifle at the local gun store. That just wouldn't be right. Just like gookyhun(sorry if i spelled that wrong!)said. You do not need a rocket launcher to feel safe. I believe that you should be able to have handguns.
It is said in the Constitution" the right to bear arms should not be infringed." I do realize that,to have limits on gun control would be "infringing" the 2nd amendment. But remember that this amendment was written during a time of tyranny and you probably wouldn't be able to buy a RPG(rocket launcher) at the gun store nearby. so that where i stand on Gun Control
With this controversial issue, I believe that citizens should have the right to bare arms as the Constitution guarantees. But I also think that there should be restrictions. Our Founding Fathers made the Constitution long ago when they couldn’t even dream of the weapons we use today. Our technology has progressed and advanced and so I think the Constitution must also evolve to match. Restrictions on age, number of guns, and how to get ownership to a gun. A child should not have any sort of weapon, and if a citizen wants a gun or two to hunt or protect their family that is reasonable but six or seven gun is a little out of control. Also before getting a gun or a license to carry, intense and well-analyzed test and background checks must be given to decide if a person is safe and responsible to own one. I believe that with limitations the American people have their right to the 2nd amendment.
The matter of gun control is a catch 22 situation for if the government cracks down on the restrictions of firearms violence would increase. However, if we allow anyone to own any type of weapon violence would obviously increase as well. It is unrealistic to make all guns illegal for there will always be a way for criminals or dangerous people to obtain a weapon. All citizens should be able to protect themselves against these people, but they only need weapons that are "necessary to the security of a free state" meaning that you don't need an automatic firearm when others are armed with handguns. This is difficult because if, as citizens, we must match the weapons of our criminals and militia, does this mean that we need heavier firepower?
Of course, we have to realize that our founding fathers could never have imagined the type of weapons that we have now. Therefore the Constitution must be amended slightly to fit our modern day society. There are many reasonable restrictions of gun control that my not be written in the Constitution but are implied because of our standard thoughts of safety. We have to understand that our world has changed since the Constitution was written and it is up to our government to decide how much of our Constitution still applies and how much should be amended.
Personally, I think that the Second Amendment of the right to bear arms should be outlawed. The question is what purpose does the Amendment serve. Obviously, it is for protection, but allowing more people to own guns raises the chance of more shootings. Also, a gun is useless when for example someone breaks in because there will not be enough time. In my opinion the feeling that someone has a gun lowers the security. Restrictions on the second amendment would be of little use because that person would just get the gun illegally. Overall, my opinion is that the Second Amendment should be outlawed or the process of getting a gun gets stricter.
Let me put it simply: guns cause violence. It is my opinion that there should be many more restrictions for gun owners, which will provide for a safer country. Adding restrictions such as banning handguns should be an obvious choice for the U.S. government to make. While all guns don't need to be banned, some guns, which have no purpose other than to kill, should be outlawed to citizens, which should cause crime rates to lower.
Also, guns intended only for protection can easily cause deaths, despite a possible accidental cause. When citizens try to take matters into their own hands, they can be distracted by all the emotions of the moment, and there is always that possibility of hitting an innocent person. That's another reason for the restriction of guns.
That is why the right to bear arms should have more restrictions, while not taking away the right completely. These restrictions will lower crime rates over time, and will eventually lead to lower murder rates and higher overall safety. I think more restrictions need to be placed for gun owners.
No way the restrictions are violating 2nd amendment "right to bear arms". Now i am not saying the people have the right to own a tank or a rpg but almost any gun or non destructive weapon that is to be used for protection or hunting should be legal with out all the tests. By making people go through all the tests and hoops it makes it harder for people to own a gun even if the only purpose is protection. The only restriction would be you need to get it licensed if for hunting and only if you pass a mental test and the gun is for protection.
If the government put even more restrictions on gun use it will make that constitutionals importance less and less each change. It is true because it shows that the constitution can be changed and who knows in a few decades our right to privacy could extend to only in your house which no one wants. Think about it by having no restrictions its not changing if a murder is legal or not it is so more people can be protected from murders. Just because someone has an AK-47 or a heavy assault rifle does not change that by shooting someone is justified.
Note: This is Drew Gurkowski my gmail account deleted my last name for some reason.
Almost all gun owners use them for self in their home and only a small amount of licensed gun owners use them for criminal purposes. As with all laws dealing with dangerous weapons, there always needs to be limits, but there are already enough limits about owning a gun.
So few crimes are committed by licensed gun owners that limiting gun ownership any more would serve little help. As another person pointed out above the gun is not intending to kill anyone, the person holding the gun is in control of it, so if we stop them from owning a gun they could just as easily murder someone with a baseball bat or club which would be a much more painful and gruesome murder.
The second amendment like all parts of the constitution involve an implied evolving standard just as is found with the 8th amendment. The second amendment says that it is necessary for the security of a free state which implies that people are allowed to have weapons in order to defend against the nation turning and attacking its own people, or in other words defensively. With that statement alone the conservatives have a ground they can and have used saying that their rights cannot be abridged, well if we weren't to put any restrictions on laws, or have an evolving standard then things like death by hanging or firing squad could still be used today. The reasons we don't are because times change, in this case weapons evolve and you cannot go around giving everybody bazooka's or automatic assault rifles because there is no need for them. I agree that you cannot ban guns, but you have to put restrictions and regulations on who gets them, what types, and how many because if we don't then anybody could get a hold of them. The conservative argument against that is by saying what type of weapons and how many you get you are taking away our rights and where will it end, though they may have some basis of thought there most people would agree that in the case of defending yourself in most cases you would not need an automatic weapon or an explosive one(RPG) so by putting more regulation and restrictions on gun rights you are helping protect more people, and still allowing people who wish to have guns the right to get them. It works out for both sides because if they really want a gun they can get one but they will need to go through a lot of different tests in order to make sure the person can be given one safely. The constitution also says that it gives states individual rights to add on and have their own ideas put down, which gives once again the implied evolving standards.
I Believe that there need to be many restrictions on gun ownership. The second amendment states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This amendment was created over 200 years ago and since then adavnces in technology have occured that would have been unimaginable to the framers.
We must look at this amendment in the context of 21st century military technology. If the purpose of this amendment was to let people protect themselves, a machinegun would not be necessary to(for example) fend off a robber. If this amendment is taken as means for protection from a tyranical government, it is pointless. If the government was to become tyranical, it is not likely that anyone would listen to restrictions and regulations about guns if they were going to use weapons against the government that imposed the rules.
In conclusion I think that very strict regulations are needed to make sure guns do not fall into the wrong hands and are not used for violence.
People need to be able to defend themselves and their family so that they can feel safe. How safe would people feel if everyone had machine guns in the windows? For people who want guns we should at more restrictions so that we are sure they can be trusted. Don't make it harder to get guns, or longer because then people will be tempted to get them the back way. When people need guns to feel safe our country is going down hill fast, and lets face it if the government decided to take over we are in trouble because they can do it so quietly no one will know until they are in our homes! People should be allowed to have guns in their homes for hunting and protection. In case your wondering it is cruel and unusual to shoot an animal with a bazooka, so why would people need one?
I believe the government should imply restrictions on guns and firearms because the need for weapons such as Bazookas or Automatic guns are not necessary to defend people and their families. The want for a gun such as a handgun or shogun, however, is more understandable from a government stance.
Hunting rifles and recreational semiautomatic guns should be legal with very strict limits and restrictions. Hunting is a sport that requires a firearm, and therefore should be allowed. There really is no safty in everybody walking around with explosive weaponry to "protect themselves".
As stated in the hit new song "We Need Limits" .... we need limits. People should feel like they are protected but that's it. That, and hobbies are okay, but minimally. People have the right to protect themselves and if guns were outlawed, there would still be people out there who managed to get their hands on a gun, just like how even though drugs are against the law, people still can get them quite easily. So, if there is the possibility that people out there have guns and citizens aren't allowed to have guns, would not be very smart. United States' citizens should be allowed to have 1 pistol for their own personal protection in the case of an emergency, but all of the permits and legal background checks are still required, if not more.
Hobbies are okay also, but gun "collecting" is not a hobby. Sharp shooting is an actual sport and so is hunting. People should be allowed to have a maximum of 3 guns, and if they wish to get different guns they need to turn in their old ones for the new ones they buy. This keeps accessive guns away from children and potentially dangerous people.. We need limits!
The US government definitely has to interpret the constitution carefully on this matter. Their are obvious restrictions like not allowing children, criminals, or mentally ill people to have guns. So the background checks are a very good rule. But the government must also keep guns under control. Although alot of bans and regulations are said to be against the 2nd amendment, not having any restriction could create alot of crime/ violence. But on the other hand if they do imply regulations their will be more crime/ violence.
I believe that guns have become such a problem in the US that no matter what is done, it will end up badly. If the US becomes harsher on gun control it will equal more crime/ violence. If they ease up on gun control it will equal more crime/ violence. There are too many ways to get guns right now and their are way to many guns in the US that no matter what law is passed their will always be guns, whether they are legal or illegal.
I believe that while every citizen has the right to own weapons, there have to be limits. Obviously, people should have to go through background checks to make sure they're not a criminal before they can own a weapon.
Also, i believe that there has to be regulations on the types of arms that can be owned. For instance, no onw should be able to buy a grenade or a rocket launcher. If everyone was able to buy any weapon they wanted, there is a reasonable chance that rival corporations could buy large weapons such as missiles and literally declare war on the government; since they have the same weapons, the government wouln't be able to stop them. The second amendment was created to protect citizens from tyrany, but our government was designed so that the government could never grow tyrrannical. therefore, we have no need to defend ourselves from them.
In my opinion there should be some restrictions to what kind of weapons people should be allowed to own. It is excessive for someone to own weapons that have a high potential for a large amount of destruction. In the wrong hands it would prove more fatal than a much weaker weapon.
I do believe that everyone has the right to own a gun that is qualified to. Everyone has the reserved right in the constitution to bare arms which should be interpreted as guns that don't have too much of a danger potential. Guns should be handled with care and I believe that it should be required to have knowledge on how to carefully take care of your gun and where to store it.
I feel that, in order to prevent acts of hate/ gun accidents, we should have strict restrictions on gun owner ship. Even though the constitution says "right to bear arms", the definition of arms now is completely different for americans. The arms that we have now, are weapons that can kill many quickly, unlike the weapons from back then, which could maybe kill one person, but would take a while to load, aim, and shoot without completely missing.
Also, other countries (such as Canada), have a far less murder rate than the US. Which shows that having gun ownership available for the public, is hurting our country more than helping.
I would like to start this out by stating that I am a member of the NRA and proud of it. I agree with most of the comments stated here about handguns, and how they should be legal. However, the limitations on the more "badass" weapons (military grade hardware) should not increase. There should obviously be extensive background checks involved in the purchase of weapons, but people still need to have the ability to purchase them!
It is my firm belief that someone with a criminal history, upon failing the background check, would still get their hands on the weapon they wanted. There is a large black market out there. But the average citizen/gun collector should still be able to purchase this hardware. For example: my cousin owns a Barrett .50 Cal. He doesn't own it as a way to better shoot people he doesn't like, but instead because he is interested in guns.
There is nothing illegal or even unethical with having such interests.
Gun control should stay in the area of conducting strict background checks and perhaps even psychological exams, but NEVER the banning of guns. Because that destroys the very freedom our forefathers sought to protect. Not the 2nd Amendment, the "right to bear arms", but instead an interpretation of the 1st Amendment. "The right to express ones self freely".
To start, Colombia is a beautiful country full of virtues, with amazing people, and a huge variety of fauna and flora. one of the biggest problems facing Colombia is the guerrillas in the mountains and valleys, and doing evil corrompiento everyone. being the biggest of problems, does not affect the population, ie, there are kidnappings and abuse, but does not mean you can not come to Colombia because it is dangerous.
if you look from another perspective, Colombia is not dangerous, is a luxury to live here with all these virtues we have, and still having the problem of the guerrillas, as any country might have to terrorism. Finally Colombia is a country not as people imagine it, you cannot talk Without Knowing, You Should Come to Colombia Beautiful Because It is a place to live in.
Como AdiazCalle dice en su blog Colombia es un país muy bello y lleno de colores, vida, y feliz. Hay tantas buenas cosas en el pais, pero mucho de ellas son en la sombra de la instabilidad política y problemas con drogas. Colombia esta un país fantastico pero es tan dificil realizarlo. Estoy seguro que la gente de Colombia, como toda la gente en el mundo, son por lo general Buenos. No está una sorpresa que trabajan mucho y sé que en el cerca futuro Colombia va a ser un país reconozida para el bello.
Es muy triste cuando piensas sobre Colombia y realizes que todo el mundo piensa cosas que no son la verdad. Mucha gente en los Estados Unidos piensan que Colombia está un país lleno de drogas, alcohol, y mucho más ilegal. Entoces algunos Estadio Unidenses temen de Colombia, y por eso está muy difícil hacer una relación. A mí me estoy muy emocionado que sé más sobre Colombia y puedo hablar sobre el país con inteligencia.
Yo tambien creo que Colombia es un pais muy bella y preciosa. Muchos personas aqui en los EEUU no saben mucho de Colombia,solo que tenian, y en unos casos todavilla tiene un problema con las drogas iligales. Pienso que si personas de otros paises fueron a Colombia para vacaciones o algo, verian que no es como muchos piensan, con personas matando a otros personas en la calle.
Yo nuca he visitado Colombia, pero quero ir. Quero saber mas de su pais y de la vida verdad alli. Todo que se sobre Colombia es de aqui, y mucho de eso es cosas falsos o malos.
last post was by Elias Sandoval-Clarimon, because the computer refuses to put in my name.
Para Camilo Marulanda
Savi Williams and Katie McQuie
La clase de Sr. O
Nosotros hemos escuchamos que Colombia es sitio bonito. ?Vives cerca de la ciudad? En Boulder, Co que son conocidos por la marihuana, los partidos, ecologista, hippies, y nuestra enorme campus de la universidad. La Universidad de Colorado en Boulder.
Usted puede pensar que los Estados Unidos está lleno de gente obesa, lo cual es cierto, pero en Boulder cada persona es un monstruo de la salud y el fitness.
La mayoría de los rumores acerca de Boulder son verdaderas, pero tenemos un montón de gente bien educada y de la delincuencia extrema muy poco. Es un gran lugar para criar una familia.
Escribe pronto por favor.
Post a Comment