After the recent appearence of several armed citizens at President Obama's healthcare rallies, the right to bear arms has come back into the national spotlight. There was a small group of protesters that brought semi-authomatic assault rifles to the meetings, while others wore their holstered pistols. In states like Arizona and New Hampshire, residents are permitted to carry their weapons as long as they're properly registered.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution states that, "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." The most controversial aspect of this amendment lies in the interpretation of what a reasonable "arm" is in 2009. Moreover, how much should the government be able to restrict US citizens' ability to own a firearm?
The Healthcare debate illicts passionate feelings on both sides. These Townhall meetings that members of Congress and the President are holding draw hundreds if not thousands of protesters on each side of this issue. Critics of guns rights advocates are maintaining that the second amendment should not give permission to carry a semi-automatic weapon in public nevermind a passionate political event. On the other hand, guns rights proponents argue that an armed citizenry, in any environment, is what protects us from government oppression.
What do you think? Should firearms be allowed at these public meetings or is this going too far? Does the Second Amendment allow us to carry firearms (of any kind) in public? What do you think the framers of the Constitutions would say about this controversy?
68 comments:
I think that you should not be allowed to bring these sorts of weapons to events like this. For one reason, look at Plaxico Burress. He just had a handgun and accidently shot himself. He was lucky, and it was only his leg, but it could have been much worse, especially if it had been a semi-automatic weapon, or something like that, and accidentally shot someone else.
Secondly, these people who own the weapons may have had background checks, but that doesn't mean that one of them couldn't have a bad day and decide to take it out on someone else.
I think that you are allowed to carry firearms, but not the kind of firearms like semi-automatics. You might need a pistol for protection, but machine guns are going overboard. Although Plaxico Burress is a unfortunate case of the use of a firearm, but he was drunk,so I think that it was just a mistake.
I think that the framers would say that we can wield guns such as pistols, but not machine guns because when they made the Constitution, they had just ended a war with the Britain. If they are still alive today (which I might find a little creepy), some of them might say no to firearms.
I think that should be allowed to carry firearms but not semmi-automatic or any type of machine gun. ONLY for the use of protection should u.s citizens that are not federal officers should be allowed to own a firearm in which it would locked in a safe or somewhere young children could not obtain these weapons. If anyone was to abuse the privlage of being given a firearm they would be puished fiercely.
As it says in the Second Amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", we have a given right to own a firearm. Now whether or not everyone owning a firearm is in the safety of our nation, we still have the right to one.
I believe firearms should not be allowed at public events like these because weapons like machine guns could really hurt other people if they were in the wrong hands. Although the 2nd Amendment does allow the right to bear arms people must remember this Amendment was made before the time of semi-automatic guns were around. I believe guns should only be used for self defense but not at big public events where people can get hurt. At political rallies, people don't really need to be concerned about security because I have been to an Obama rally before and there were security officials on roofs of buildings nearby to protect Obama and other people if need be. ~Brynn Conroy
In my opinion I think that firearms should not be allowed at these public meetings, even if it is only a hand gun or pistol. Many harmful things have come from people carrying around guns, even if they were only accidental. Background checks only reference what has happened in the past, and they have no idea of what you may do in the future with the gun.
The 2nd Amendment does state that people have the right to bear arms in public places, but if people are worrying about security at a public meeting like this there really isn't a need. There are constantly people looking out for the safety of President Obama, as well as the people who attend the meetings. By not allowing guns, of any kind, it reduces the risk of an incident occuring. Especially machine and semi- automatic guns.
I think that the framers of the Constitution would agree that people do have the right to bear arms in public, keeping in mind that at their time machine guns and semi- automatics weren't around and their main purpose for guns back then was for protection/self defense. Considering how times have changed I think they would be okay with a pistol or hand gun at the very most.
I think that all citizens should be allowed to carry weapons of any sort where ever WITH a permit. Most people are not going to carry semi-automatic guns to public places and those who do are not likely to go shooting anyone or anything. The Second Amendment allows people to carry any gun because most of the population is not going to carry guns in public in the fist place.
I think the founders of this amendment probably didn't think ahead to the days of semi-automatics, but even if they did they would of still made it because not having the right to bare arms would give the gov't more power over the people.
i think that people having guns in public places like that is a bit dangerous. what if the saftey wasn't of and some thing happened to make the trigger pulled? WHats the guy going to say of his gun kills some one (on accident)? i don't care what people do. i'd just stay a way from a guy with semi automatic on his back. Just os long as the police and law enforcement have bigger guns.
At least the constitution isn't being violated
I think that for the Federal Government to make cutoff decisions on what is considered a "publicly acceptable arm" and what is not would be next to impossible with our Federalist systems. Different states will have different opinions on what type of firearm is considered "safe to carry in public." This state issue would be given to the Federal court for intervention. This would put our Federal legislation between a rock and a hard place because what's to say that an .44 deer rifle is more dangerous than a semi-automatic? Guns are guns, that's really all there is to it. No matter the size, they all pose a hazardous threat to all life and dangerous potential accidents can be avoided by simply banning them in public locations. Personally, I would feel far less paranoid if I could be assured that the drunk guy sitting next to me in a restaurant didn't have a pistol in the sleeve of his jacket and a knife strapped to his ankle.
As for the Second Amendment right for Americans to bear arms, I completely concur with this part of the Constitution. Let's face it, weapons are usually the simplest and most powerful mechanism of self-defense. All Americans deserve the right to their own property and certainly their own protection against intruders etc. I believe that we should be able to hold registered firearms in our homes for means of self-defense but to be allowed to bring a weapon into a public area is simply foolish and should not be permitted in the United States of America. I can see no upside to this issue being passed and therefore believe that Americans should not possess the right to bear arms anywhere but on their own property.
I think that US citizens should be allowed to own weapons, and carry them on their own property, with a background check, and if they want to use their weapon outside their property they should be required to have a permit. However, I don't think anyone should ever be allowed to carry a weapon in public like some protesters did at Obama's healthcare rallies. It is one thing to carry a firearm on your own property, endangering nobody but yourself, but carrying a weapon that powerful in a crowd is entirely different because it endangers other people as well.
I think only certain types of weapons should be allowed, as well, because when the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, the firearms were not automatic at all and could not fire as many shots before re-loading. The weapons we have now are much more dangerous and could injure someone more severely or injure many people in a very short time.
First of all, I would like to mention how unbelievably disrespectful it is to bring a semi-automatic weapon to a public place where anybody, especially the President of the United States, is giving a speech. I understand some people's want to show off how much they either, disagree with what is being said or just trying to make a statement by pushing their Constitutional rights.
The Constitution's second amendment does state that you may own and carry firearms but, this may be a little extreme. I'm not saying I disagree with the Second Amendment, I'm just saying it's a bit out of date. For a person to own any type of firearm, from hand guns to machine guns, they should go through extensive background checks, get a license, and be required to take a class teaching them how to handle and use they're weapons properly, for an pre-decided amount of time; depending on how complex the firearms they posses happen to be.
Personally, I wouldn't want to own or be in possession of any type of firearm for fear I might hurt myself or someone I love instead of the person I want to protect myself, and loved ones, from. Many more people who own guns end up shooting themselves, or someone they don't want to shoot because they're riled up to shoot something; I wouldn't want to take that risk.
The 2nd amendment was created in the 1700's, when a gun was limited to a musket and could hardly fire multiple rounds in a minute. At the time, the American public was also wary of a 2nd attempt from the British to attack and control the country, and were consoled by the idea of having their musket on hand t all times.
The Amendment is outdated. Not only are there weapons like certain kinds of machine guns that can raise a group of people in seconds, but anyone can carry them. Bank robbers, mass murders, and any other sorts of criminal are rejoicing at this amendment which grants them a right to own these sorts of firearms, allowing them to carry out their misanthropic misdeeds to a greater effect. This Amendment needs to be reconsidered: the deadlier technology of the age has warranted some sort of change, if not outrightly banning privately owned weapons then at least limiting them to pistols with background checks.
I do not think that the government should control what kinds of weapons the citizens of the united states can possess. I believe this because it clearly states in the constitution of the united states that we, the citizens have the right to bear arms. Thus giving us the ability, if not responsibility, to overthrow our government if they become oppressive. If the government tells us that were not allowed to own semi automatic weapons but they can, then whats to stop them from using their guns against us in an opressive manner.
However, i do not think it is appropriate to to carry these loaded weapons in a public area. If this continues then all kinds of horrible accidents could happen wounding or perhaps even killing someone near an accidentally fired gun. I think these weapons should generally be kept at home and used in times of emergency and/or self-defense.
One last point that i would like to make is that if one part of our constitution is changed then whats next? There will be an amendment to freedom of speech? freedom of religion? its a slippery slope once we start changing the ideals that our great nation were built upon.
I think that every person has the right to protect themselves. And it should remain perfectly legal to carry a concealed hand gun with a permit. Also I believe that there is a fine line between protecting ourselves and just abusing our right. Having a semi-automatic assault rifle is more likely to hurt other and its owner the it is to protect.
Not to mention that at this type of event there's no need to walk around with a semi-automatic weapon that's more of an endangerment to every one else around than it is to protect your self.
In the current times we live in I find it not necessary to protect our selves with semi-auto matic rifles.It could be justifiable in the future but not now.
I think that the people who thought of this amendment weren't thinking about semi- automatic rifles. They were probably thinking of just hand guns and not so powerful guns.
The people that want guns of any nature I think need to go through training and a background check because there are far too many fatalities each year because of someone who just doesn't know how to use a gun and people who just have the urge to fire a gun, sometimes in a crowded public place.
I don't think that citizens should be allowed to carry around automatic weapons but i do believe that citizens should be able to have hand guns or smaller weapons if they have the license for them. It does clearly say in the constitution that citizens have the right to bear arms.
I doubt that the people who brought the weapons to the gathering were planing on using them in public. I think this was just a passionate way of showing how they feel on this subject. I think we should stick to the constitution because if its held the country together for this long then why stop now?
I believe that the second amendment to the constitution protects the right to bear arms, even semi-automatics. It is clear to me that the people at the health rallies have no intention of hurting anyone. They have their weapons for everyone to see, and they are probably under intense surveillance from the secret service. The guns they have are not for shooting people, it's probably just to make a message. People are scared of these guns even though it says right in the constitution that you are allowed to have them. Guns are part of the American culture, and restricting them is restricting the people's freedom.
Some people say that this will lead to increased crime. It might, but most (semi-automatic) weapons used in crimes are bought illegally, so it would probably protect us. Not only that, but I think that background checks can be done, and I think people with criminal records should be restricted in gun use. Yes, some people will have guns that should not be trusted with guns, but others will have guns to protect themselves, too.
I think that automatic weapons should not be allowed in public places like pep rallies. There could be kids or elderly people that can't run away if the person with the automatic weapons decides to go crazy or forgot to take their medicine one day. But in places like Arizona, Alaska and New Hampshire carrying around guns is a way of life. You just can's stop it.
I think that people should be allowed to carry weapons around just not automatic weapons that could accidently go off around children or kill lots of people. The Second Amendment states that we have the right to bear arms. and bear arms we will. Just not semi automatic or automatic guns that do the most damage.
Ban all automatic and semi-automatic weapons from being owned by and sold to civilians, and the possession/concealment of all firearms, including handguns, in public places. All gun sales must be done through a licensed dealer and all buyers must have an extensive background check. In addition, increase funding to law enforcement services to crackdown on illegal and smuggled guns.
Government oppression? What the...? Where do people get these ideas? The IRS doesn't come into your home armed demanding you pay your taxes. The risk to the common populace of wielding lethal weapons in public far outweighs the benefits. There isn't much of a chance you'll be mugged and robbed as you walk down the streets of any major metropolis. Oftentimes, the people that feel they need to carry such force in public are insecure/have mental problems and need serious rehabilitation. These people shouldn't own guns anyways if the background check idea is implemented.
When this amendment was created it was at a time when citizens did not have a way to protect themselves from the government of from each other. But that was more than two-hundred years ago. In our modern society we have enough resources to protect ourselves. All we have to do is dial 911 and the police are minutes away.
Also, The constitution was written after the United States succeeded from Britain so everyone was afraid of the government having to much power. Now there is no way the government can become too controlling because of the constitution. Citizens and members of the armed forces know how to follow the constitution and they would never let the government do anything unconstitutional. There is no reason for citizens to carry guns around, it just makes more people get hurt.
I believe that people should not bring firearms to a public event. Policemen and other officials have the right to bring firearms like pistols and other weapons. If there was an emergency during that public event, the police force will be there to assist the citizens.
The Second Amendment gives people the right to bear arms, so I think that people can own their own firearms. But to bring semi-automatics and other guns to a public event is going overboard. When the Constitution was made, people usually didn't bring firearms to a public event. There should be more specifics in the Second Amendment for the people living in the 21st Century.
I think that it should be non-permissible to carry firearms at public events, particularly events where people might become angry or upset. In that situation, everybody there would be in danger. Not to mention that that might be their intent in the first place.
I think the authors/framers of the Constitution would agree with me. The reason they wrote that amendment was for common defense, not so that people could threaten or hurt. They doubtless never meant for this kind of thing to occur as a result of the 2nd Amendment.
Personally, I do not agree with the Second Amendment. I believe that only authority figures such as police should need and have the right to bear arms. Citizens of America are not using hand guns responsibly nonetheless semi-automatics. I think that U.S citizens owning and using firearms is dangerous and unnecessary, especially at a heated, political event.
Secondly, semi-automatics should not even be exposed to the general public by police. These types of guns where made and should be used strictly for a military basis. Machine guns are overkill for protected a man's family and extremely unnecessary for an event like Obama's healthcare rally. If someone wants to express their opinion, they can easily write a blog, or start a club, but bring a gun to a rally is inappropriate.
I personaly beleive that bringing weapons to a presidental "meeting" or speech should not be legal. I respect that the constitution clearly stats that people have the right to bear arms and carry weapons around, yet i think people who carry these weopons around should be limited to the places they are allowed to bring it, and should only bring it outside their homes in case they feel in danger by something. If they have no reson why to bring it out into the public then i think they should keep it at home where it is safe and not in sight of other people.
I think the people who greatly respect and all for the constitution would probably disagree with my opinion for the consitution stats that people are allowed to bear arms where ever (unless that certain place stats other wise) and I disagree with this admendment for i beleive this could be dangres to ones self and others.
The 2nd amendment is very difficult to interpret. The 2nd amendment mentions a militia. Perhaps what they Founding Fathers had in mind was a militia composed of citizen-soldiers who protected the country in the stead of a trained, government-run military. In this case, the 2nd amendment seems to have been grossly misinterpreted: we do not have a militia, but we have a well-armed defense force.
However, just because it's dangerous to carry firearms around at public protests doesn't mean it shouldn't be legal. Guns are there to protect our rights as individuals so we can protect ourselves from a hostile totalitarian takeover. For example, if the government said I couldn't have guns, I might actually get scared enough to go out and get some. Ultimately the second amendment protects our rights as individuals, which is an important tenet of our Constitution. So, I believe that while people's decisions to carry assault rifles at public rallies should probably be considered a threat, You can't take away such a right from the people. It's simplay too important.
I think that guns should be ban because of all the people that die because of them. When the second amendment was made guns weren't as deadly as accurate or as fast to load. Now guns can shoot dozens of bullets a minute and are far deadlier. Law enforcement officers should be allowed to carry guns and so should the military but so many people die because of guns it seems ridiculous to let so many people have them.
At events like the one mentioned guns being ban would give people peace of mind that they wouldn't get shot at, killed or hurt because someone with a gun gets angry. The president would be a lot safe because of the ban on guns JFK and Lincoln were both shot by gun owning citizens.
I think that bringing weapons like this to very public events like health care debates should be against the law. Semi-automatic assualt weapons have no place on city streets, loaded or empty. I do believe that people should be able to own guns for protection of their homes and for things like hunting. The constitution is 200 years old and when it was enacted an "arm" took a minute to load and was much less precise than the extreme guns that we have today.
I think that bringing weapons, no matter what kind, into a public place, ought to be illegal. Other than the obvious risk of accidents, there is always the chance that someone with criminal record or history of mental illness could have slipped through the background checks. Also, the owner of a weapon isn't always the only user. Especially during a crowded event like a political rally, it would be easy for someone to take some else's legally owned gun and wound or kill many people with it. It doesn't even have to be as obvious as that. The kids who committed the attack on Columbine used their parents guns. Parents would never think to hide/lock up their guns for their own children.
Also, I think a big part of the reason why guns should be banned is the feeling they cause. Anyone could kill someone with a gun, so when someone comes into a public place with a gun they are sending the message that they have power over your life. This causes fear and hate among the people, which could eventually lead to the actual use of the gun. I don't think anyone should be able to have that much power over someone else, even if they have a legal right to it.
I think that mild fire arms should be allowed anywhere in public. but heavy assult rifles and anything above the size or power of a small pistol, is too much. Keep in mind that the second amendment was written when a fire arm was a musket that you could load once a minute if you were very good. A assult rifle is too much of a scare to the people.
also. i don"t believe anyone really needs the protection of anything larger then a pistol. a small pistol is more then enough to cary and feel safe
There is a huge problem in allowing people to own guns. This problem is: Guns=death. Anything with that kind of outcome is flat-out barbaric. Even handguns, which people vehemently argue for, are involved in countless accidents each year. A kid, knowing no better, walks into their parents' room, grabs their gun, and starts playing with it. Boys especially will play mock "War" with any gun-like object they can find. And guns, even if they are on safety, can go off.
One of the saddest instances of gun misuse and mistakes happened when this 18 year old kid was coming home. He had had too much to drink, so he cut across a neighbor's yard. The neighbor, thinking this guy was an intruder, pulls out his firearm and shoots this guy. And he was protected under the "Make my day" law that Colorado has.
The US is one of the last civilized countries to allow full gun rights to anyone who can get a license. They can buy any type of gun, from M16s to military-grade machine guns. This, in my opinion, is just not right.
Finally, in my opinion, the second amendment says that guns can be owned by civilians if needed by a militia. This was written soon after the Revolutionary War, when the Federal Government did not have a strong way to defend the states. This was a time when people needed guns; what would happen if the British decided to come invade again? The government would not be ready to stop it. It would be up to the people.
Alex Newhouse
I think that we should not be allowed to carry any type of automatic or semi automatic weapon.I belive that is why we have the military. If personal citizans start carrying around their guns to piblic places then, there would be mad chaos all the time.
I think that you should only be allowed to bear arms in the privacy in their own home and it's dangrous to other citizens when they bring weapons to public events like this.
I believe that you should not be allowed to carry weapons to public meetings of events. They scare people and there is no need to do something like that.yes you have a right to bear arms but that doesn't meet you should bring them to a safe place where you not threatened or in danger. If Americas under attack that's one thing but if you are a public place that's another.
Furthermore semi automatic rifle should be illegal to own. Sure you may need a rifle to hunt or a pistol for home defense but a semi automatic weapons just means your looking for trouble.
In my opinion, people should not be allowed to bring semi automatic weapons to public events or even own them at that. First of all, this amendment was created a long time ago when weapon technology was not as advanced. Today, we have firearms like machine guns that can do a lot more damage than just a musket. This amendment needs to be updated according to what life is like today.
Also, i think it is outrageous that an 18 year old can buy a semi automatic machine gun, but they can't buy a beer. Who is to say what some citizens are to do with these weapons? Having them in a public place increases the risk of injury or murder weather it is accidental or not.
I think that what has been happening at the healthcare rallies is an extreme misappropriation of the second amendment. Yes, the right to defend yourself is very important but when you step over the line into hurting innocent people just to speak your mind it gets a bit insane. Were people expecting to be attacked at the town hall meetings? Thus they would need protection themselves. If that is the truth then I think are nation is in a very bad place. What has been happening already is disrespectful enough, but threatening political figures just for trying to change things! If this behavior continues how will any of the government policies get better, not just health care.
In my personal opinion I think that people should be able to carry small weapons if they feel they need protection, but those should be used in extreme measures, not intimidation. Besides intimidating others what could be the reason to bring a semi-automatic assault rifle to a public meeting? I surely hope that there isn’t a credible one. I think that the founding fathers would be horrified by this conflict. Back then the whole of America was under attack from foreign adversaries and weapons were necessary to protect your freedom. Some may argue that bringing a weapon to a health care meeting is protecting our freedom, but do they realize that they themselves are creating the threat. Overall I think that we should respect the second amendment and individual rights, but not to bring dangerous weapons to peacemaking situations such as town hall meetings. Kaitlin May
In my opinion, bringing a semi-automatic assault rifle to a town hall meeting is not "necessary to the security of a free State". The second amendment was created to ensure the safety of the country incase Great Britain made a second attack or another powerful country tried to take over. We now have a powerful military to defend the safety of our country. The soldiers in our military go through extensive training to learn how to responsibly handle a weapon. Random citizens at town hall meetings have not gone through this training and could easily hurt someone without even trying to. A good example of this is Plaxico Burress. I think that we should leave the defense of our country up to our well trained military.
I think that armed citizens in public places would be causing more harm than good. They would be much more likely to harm a fellow citizen (whether on purpose or accidentally) than to protect the safety of our country. Just because a citizen is properly registered for a weapon, even if they go through a background check, doesn't mean that they will responsibly handle the weapon. As to what the creators of the constitution would say on the matter, I believe that they would allow citizens to carry small weapons but no semi-automatic or or automatic weapons. It is just too dangerous, especially at these town hall meetings where people are angry and frustrated and therefore more likely to lash out at someone. Unless everyone goes through intense training on how to handle a weapon, they should not be allowed to carry them in public.
I believe that you should not have the right to bring semi automatic weapons or weapons of any kind to an event like this. Nor should you be allowed to own any sort of weapon at all. Some people would disagree with this and use the second ammendment on their behalf, but the second ammendment was made way before semi automatic weapons were made. And the firearms that the second ammendment is referring to were not as harmful as the firearms today.
Many people say that they have the right to own firearms for their own safety. And that they must have gone through a background check before owning a firearm. But the guns that are there for “safety” end up being the guns that take lives away. Either from suicide, or murder; accidental or not. And even if they have gone through background checks, it doesn’t mean that that person will be the one causing harm. Anyone can get their hands on a weapon if it is in someones house. There are many instances where children get ahold of their parents firearms and accidents usually occur. If no one was able to own a gun, the people would be better off.
If America is truly the land of the free, then why do some Americans, who support the rights of religious freedom and freedom of speech, want to diminish or infringe on the right to defend oneself? In every aspect of life, especially in public places, law abiding Americans should have the right to legally carry any type of firearm. After undergoing an extensive background check on whether they have a criminal record or history of mental illness and required safety courses have been successfully completed, it is fair and constitutional that gun owners have the right to carry firearms in public places. During the Obama healthcare rallies, some citizens were just trying to convey their point that they DO have second amendment rights which clearly state the government cannot impede on their ownership of firearms.
In their own written words, our founding fathers have already addressed this matter and any future firearm controversies. Even though times and circumstances have changed, our rights should never. The framers lived through government oppression and had first hand knowledge that a people without means to defend themselves and their homes became subject to an imposing power. They wanted to insure that future generations knew freedom and could rise up against any opposing force. It is unfortunate that it has become necessary to advance firearm technologies to include such powerful weaponry, however, I believe the founding fathers understood that advances would be made and that their conviction was to protect our second amendment rights; if that means being able to carry semi-automatic assault riffles to public meetings, so be it!
Gia Nyhuis
I think that bringing these types of weapons to public events should not be allowed. The constitution does allow people to own firearms but this was at a time when everybody was helping defend their country. This doesn't mean that people don't have the right to own guns at all. Pistols for self defense and certain rifles for hunting, I think, is perfectly fine. But when I see some guy who's angry at what the president has to say and he's carrying a machine gun, I think that's a little overboard.
Personally, I don't see the need to own a weapon like that at all, especially in public. That's why i believe that owning certain firearms for self defense and for hunting absolutely should be allowed but semi-automatic guns should be put into question.
I do not think people should be allowed to carry weapons to public events. I however think that people should be allowed to own a handgun or something small for protection in their home. Bringing a semi-automatic riffle to a public place is not only incredibly dangerous, it is also incredibly foolish. Having a small handgun at your house for protection is one thing; having a semi-automatic riffle and bringing it to a public place is a competely different thing.
The bottom line is: guns are guns and all guns are dangerous. I do think that since our constitution does say we have the right to bear arms we should have this right. However I think there should be very strict policies that have to be upheld and only certain guns should be registered for certain reasons. Registering a semi-automatic and saying its for protection is going way over-board. I think allowing anyone to own an gun is foolish and I agree with egriffey: Americans should only be allowed to possess firearms on their own property.
Meaghan James
I think that bringing semi-automatic weapons and/or hand guns to a public gathering is crossing the line. The second amendment does allow people to have guns but there have to be restrictions. Bringing guns into a public place is just to dangerous because if things got just a little out of hand then a lot of people could get hurt or killed.
I think it is ok to have a gun at your house or in your car for your own personal protection and not to make a political statement. Having a gun for your own protection is just fine but bringing it into the open where innocent people might get hurt is just to dangerous
I think that there there should be restrictions on what kinds of firearms you are allowed to have. Semi-automatics should be illegal because of their ability to kill so many people all at once. I also believe that there should be restictions about when you can use firearms because I think it's inapporpriate and unsafe for for people to bring guns to events like peaceful political rallies.
As for the framers of the Constitution, I think they would be at a different conclusion then they were hundreds of years ago. Back then, they weren't even near the firearm technology we have today; is a lot more dangerous. Secondly, they were fresh out of a revolution and wanted to have the power to have weapons in case they needed to revolt again from an unfit government. Considering this I think they would say that citizens should have the right to bare non semi-automatic firearms because it keeps the second amendment but also pretecting the public from massacers.
I do not believe that fire arms should be allowed in the presence of the President or at public meetings. This is because it allows the people in possession of these guns to have the ability to hurt somebody, and that somebody could be the President. However, I do believe that people can own handguns for self-defense.
The Second Amendment does allow us to carry firearms (of any kind) in public, but, I do think that times have changed since, 1791 (when the Second Amendment was created). So, I do not believe that the framers of the Constitution would want guns to be allowed in front of the President or even in front of the public in general. Although, I do think that they would allow people to have guns for their own personal protection and safety/self-defense.
By Kristin Breakell
In my opinion, citizens should be able to bear firearms but only on their property or in a designated area (such as places for hunting). On one's own property the gun could be controlled better and not endanger other citizens.
In public this changes. I do not think that one should be able to cary a semi-automatic assault rifle just anywhere - especially not to a public place where the president is speaking. As some people mentioned before the constitution was made a long time ago and back then people didn't have huge guns just to carry around with them.
I do not believe that firearms such as semi-automatics should be allowed anywhere in public; especially when in the presence of someone as highly known as the president. I know that even though the person might be legally registered to have a firearm, that doesn't mean that they are still endangering the people in the place that they bring their gun to. It is very dangerous and it puts the lives of many people in danger if the trigger does happen to be pulled. I think only the government should be able to carry such weapons only in the sense that they would use it to protect people, such as Obama in this case. If someone has a permit and has had an extensive backround check, I think it's okay for them to own a small handgun the the case of emergencys. If it is being used for self defense, then I believe it is more then ok.......but just a handgun.
I belive that people should be allowed to own weapons when they have backround checks and have a license to opperate such weapons. Although i belive in being able to protect yourself I do not think it is at all necisary to have a semi-automatic weapon in public let alone at a presidential event. To tell the truth the main reason I belive this is because although their is good protection around the president it would be almost impossible to protect him in the event that more than one person had these weapons and organized the attack beforehand. Also take for example the virginia tech shootings. The shooter got many of these guns through legal means and although he had guns no other students had guns and therefore many people were harmed. My point in saying this is that I think for the arms clause to be effective all or most citizens would have to have guns because with only few people having weapons this gives them an unusual amount of power and makes them very dangerous. That is my thought on bringing such weapons to presidential rallies and having them in public.
I think that when the founding fathers wrote this clause they either expected it would be a good tool to keep from having another ruler taking them over. However i doubt that they expected that weapons would advance so much and back in those days one shot could be fierd a minute by the ordinary gun and would not do as much damage. However now hundreds of people can be killed in less than a minute which changes the nature of the weapon entirly. Therefore i doubt that if they were writing such a document now that they would allow such freedom in regards to weapon control.
I think people should be able to bear any gun whether it be a handgun or a rifle. Say a robber breaks into your house and has a gun, what are you gonna do, beat him up? with a gun you could at least scare him away without having to shoot once.
Because there are background checks this will cut down the amount of criminals getting guns. But most of the criminals can get that stuff on the black market. And with criminals getting guns what are we going to do if we get attacked and don't have a weapon.
So I think that all citizens with a positive background check should have the right to bear arms.
I think that the second amendment is fine as long as the right to bear arms has limitations, and people can achieve a compromise between owning guns and being oppressed. Although some might say that limiting the 2nd amendment is a violation of rights, I don't think that there are any rights that don't have limitations to them. This is because at some point, all rights end up affecting/harming others, and the 2nd amendment is no different.
I think that since the 2nd amendment intends for the right to bear arms to be a source of defense, people need to figure out how they can own guns so that they are only being used to defend themselves and not to endanger others who are not oppressing/attacking them. I think the true questions are what kind of gun you should be able to own and where you should be allowed to bring it/use it.
As for the accidents that take place every year due to the ownership of guns, I think that if there are restrictions on gun ownership, when people get a gun, they are agreeing to the risks that come with it. I think that as long as they don't bring anyone else into their potential accidents, they are fine.
By achieving this balance, people still have their 2nd amendment rights, but the dangers that they pose to others is limited.
Therefore, I think that bringing firearms (semi-automatic assault rifles) to a public event is going to far. I don't think that people should be able to own semi-automatic assault rifles if they just want to defend themselves, and bringing a gun to a public event is clearly endangering other people.
I think that people shouldn't be aloud to carry firearms at all. Bringing weapons like machine guns to events like this is dangerous and causes fear for people and makes them uncomfortable. If someone was standing there with a machine gun it would be intimidating because you don't know if they are trying to hurt people or just have it for defense.
I also think that the idea for people to get background checks wouldn't be very affective because a lot of the people that have background checks might act on impulse because of a bad day and want to take it out on other people. Guns may be good for household protection, but there are other ways to defend yourself. Also if you have the gun in your house there could be an accident or something.
I find no problem with taking a semi-automatic weapon to a town hall meeting of any kind. Our constitution guarantees it. I think it's an incredibly stupid idea to carry a gun around with you at all times, but if we start limiting rights we'll never stop. Right restriction is underway with guns. What's stopping it from happening to free speech?
In my opinion, people should not be allowed to carry semi-automatics to local events like this.
For starters, the second amendment was created many many many years ago when the capability of technology wasn't nearly as advanced as it is now a days. I believe that this amendement needs to updated to what the world is like today, rather than what the world was like 200+ years ago. Yes there is the debate of being registered and being "responsible enough" to carry such a weapon by going through a backround check, but there's always a way around things. Even if one has a safe history, who is to say that the person can't change later?
I know many people say it's for safety, and I'm not calling them liars because there are probably a lot of people that honestly carry these kinds of firearms for safety, but is it really necessary to carry a semi-automatic? I think carrying a downgraded weapon such as a pistol in their household is much more reasonable. C'mon now, bringing a semi-automatic to a local event where a person such as the president is present, and to bring such a thing because you disagree with his words is simply rediculous.
The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. It is as simple as that. I understand that guns are extremely dangerous, but when our personal rights are violated, that is not right. I don’t know why someone really would need a semi automatic weapon other than they are awesome, but they are exclusively given that right in the second amendment to the constitution.
A skeptic would say that guns do more harm than good when under citizen control. I don’t disagree with that fact today. But when we aren’t allowed to take guns with us, have them, and the military are the only ones with guns, what’s to stop them from taking over the country? It is our duty as citizens to stand up against an oppressive government and without weapons, we can’t.
Tim Driscoll
I think that no matter what, bringing any weapons should be illegal in public places. Many people would argue that they have the guns for their own safety and that is constitutional to be able to have guns. But when the constitution was written, did they have guns that could could shoot none stop? NO! They had guns that didn't have the same accuracy or speed that guns have today. In that era there were a lot of evil people that wanted to do harm, but i personally believe that there are more people out there today that aren't afraid to shoot a gun. and once they shoot they can't be stopped immediately like they could be in the constitutional era. Think about the difference between six bullets per a minute for a good guns man or a semi automatic riffle.
Also, when someone brings such a huge gun to a public event it causes fear. Fear creates chaos and give me one example where fear and chaos have lead to anything good. Some would also argue that hunters need guns with them. But if it is a hunter that needs a gun to go hunting why are they showing up at a health care rally. Also, it seems hypocritical of someone to show up with a gun to a health care rally. Isn't health care about keeping people healthy, and wouldn't a gunshot be causing someone health problems? I strongly believe that firearms are over used. Times are different today then they were when the constitution was written. It is time we start excepting the time period that we live in!
the columbine kids used semi automatic rifles to kill their victims, and they were just kids, just think of how many people a trained gun man could kill with a semi automatic in a crowd like that. First off, back then people had a reason to own guns, there were militias. The constitution 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." and second of all, the arms they had back then took a good thirty seconds to reload, try to take out a crowd with one of those, you would be on the ground before you could fire a second shot, and that's to say you even managed to fire the first.
I believe it is definitely going too far to bring these weapons to public meetings, especially since the reason the government is holding the meetings in the first place is to receive citizens' questions and concerns in the peaceful way that is American. The proponents of guns rights need to use their voice, not the semi-automatic on their back, to make a point.
As to my opinion on the matter, the world in which the Constitution was written was very different from the world we live in now. The founders did not solve all of the country's problems right of the bat, like voting rights and slavery, because they knew the future would bring changes and knew that the people would adjust and come up with a solution when it was necessary.
This brings me to my final thought, which is that machine guns and semi-automatic weapons are not appropriate for citizens to flaunt in public or own even with a permit. Other, smaller guns that are not semi-automatic are fine, though only with an extensive background check and a permit (it's better than nothing). The times have changed, new technology has advanced, and it is necessary to adapt now.
Personally i think that the only solution is compromise. small handguns are dangerous, let alone semi-automatics. However if we were to ban the right to bear arms it would bring up a huge debate over changing the constitution.
Many people feel they need a handgun to protect themselves, and for some people that is true, but not many.When the constitution was written the founding fathers wanted to give the people the power to protect themselves against enemies, which could include the government, however, because that is no longer a problem the same rule doesn't apply as much. Also the founding fathers never imagined that guns could be capable of such destruction.
I think we should ban semi-automatics, but let licensed people own handguns. That way we decrease the threat of murder, but we still allow the other side to protect themselves.
My opinion is that no matter what, firearms should not be allowed in public places. They only promote fear and create intimidation and power over other people. There are a ton of reasons why guns and other weapons should not be allowed. First of all, there is always a chance of someone getting hurt whether on purpose or accident. Second, why would anybody want to be carrying around a big machine gun? It will only create fear and arguments.
I know that people argue that people should be allowed to have guns for their own saftey, but does that make it safe for other people who don't feel safe when that one person who wants to protect themself has a firearm? and I know that people who have a license are safe, but do we really know?
Also, the United States would be a lot safer without everybody carrying around firearms. there would be a decrease in deaths, (I think) and people wouldnt be so worried about their saftey when walking home or around town.
I think that if the people who created the constitution would be confused with the question. i know that they would try to protect the rights of every citizen, but I don't think that they would want every regular Joe wandering the street with a semi automatic thrown over their shoulder. Back then, the weapons were less dangerous and I beleive that they would be apalled to find us using gigantic and ridiculous weapons.
Firearms should not be allowed in public places whatsoever!! People and the government worry about 9/11 and other tragic terrorist attacks and murders, but they don't realize that weapons and armory are one of the main causes of these attacks. When I say armory, i mean bombs as well, but weapons like guns and pistols are just as bad in a public area. A person can easily pull out a gun and destroy a dozen people's lives in the blink of an eye if it's in a large crowd. Things like school shootings are caused by weapons as well. We need to restrain gun usage in public because it can cause serious damage...
Firearms like pistols should be allowed in homes though, but only if it has a license of some sort. Guns can be a great way of self defense in very dangerous situations, but they can also be dangerous to children that are around the house. If you have a gun, you should have to sign a contract saying you will keep it out of reach from children. It is always good for protection, but if you abuse it, you lose it.
-alex davie
when the framers of the constitution wrote the second amendment, it took one mintue to load and fire a gun. Today, assault rifles can kill dozens of people in the same amount of time. The game has changed, the laws should to.
Just look back. We've seen political rallies get violent before, just imagine if some of those people had been armed with assault rifles.
The second amendment was established for self defense. The men at these rallies weren't afraid of being attacked, it was 100% a scare tactic. Keep in mind that this is not a debate about the right to own guns, its about the right to brandish them in the street.
I think having a gun is well within your constitutional rights, however you must to through background checks and investigations. In addition you may only have the gun on your property, its your choice to own a gun and if you shoot yourself acidentally,thats your problem,your not endangering the public. I think the type of guns citizens may obtain must be hand guns or less powerful arms. Look at Columbine for an example to show what can happen when people come into possession of too powerful guns.
I believe carrying automatic assault rifles in public is completley not okay. Your not only endangering yourself but the public. Especially under the influence of alcohol matters can get into a dangerous situation. Moreover bringing heavy weapondry to public rallies it out of the question not okay. The public will be threatened and scared. thus creating a anti-peaceful rally going against the constitution. Plus whats the point in bringing a weapon to a rally, for attention, intimidation, showing off your values.
I believe that having firearms in any public place should illegal. Guns endanger everyone around them, including the gunman. The truth is some people want to see other people dead. Even if a person means no harm, accidents happen and people can be hurt or killed, and death cannot be healed for the victim and his/her loved ones.
However, even if carrying firearms becomes illegal, we can never stop people from carrying guns in America. We can only try to show the danger they bring to innocent people and stop people before they cause any harm.
I think that carrying firearms in public should be illegal. Guns endanger everyone in the area, including the gunman. The truth is that there are people in the world that want other people dead. Even if someone has good intentions, accidents happen. Death can never be repaired for the victim or his/her friends and family. Firearms should only be allowed in shoting ranges and for hunting animals you will use or eat.
However, even if firearms are illegal, American can never stop all of its citizens from carrying guns. We can only warn them about the dangers firearms pose to everyone or stop people before they cause any harm.
A semi automatic at a healthcare rally???? I don't think so! I don't think a bunch of people need to carry around high powered weapons were there are no weapons. Small weapons are one thing but semi auto? Plaxico Burress Was at a nightclub and had a few drinks...he had a tiny pistol. Image a bar filled with people with big guns. I think firearms should not be aloud in public areas.
Post a Comment