The second amendment of the United States Constitution grants the right to bear arms. Given the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona many have suggested the horrible ordeal wouldn't have happened if firearms were not readily accessible.
I believe there is a sound reason that our Second Ammendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees each citizen the right to bear arms. I think that each citizen who desires to should be armed and able to protect their property from invaders, both foreign and domestic.
Regarding the Arizona shooter and others like him - there are more ways to kill people than to shoot them. Timothy McVeigh used explosives. Bad people will always have weapons. Good people should be allowed to defend and protect themselves against those bad people.
Anyone who does not want to own a gun doesn't have to, but for those who do not trust the government's ability to protect them or their property, they should be allowed to own guns. Any problems that are caused by their misuse should be accompanied by consequences as prescribed by law.
oyebola o.online if this law can be reversed it will be awesome because vanity upon vanity all is vanity. Those that dont have a gun and stay out of trouble are still living at peace because theirtrust is in God. a little anger and the acess to gun can endangerpeoples lives.besides the government is making a whole lot of money onthis buying and selling of guns.as for the police should be only ones carrying guns not the citizens
in response toshannon oyebola o.online if imay ask shannon, what isthe sound reason behide the bill of right that was passed that gauranty each citizen the right to bear arms?
Natavius F. Online: When I first got news of the devastatingly bizarre ordeal that transpired in Tuscon, Arizona on January 8, 2011 I was stunned. A random man waltz up and began to opended fire onto the masses. As far as the second amendment to bear arms is concerned, I don't think it should be abolished because I feel one has all the right in the world to protect themselves from a attacker, assailant, and/or intruder. It's one's perogative. In regard to the Arizona shooting, that was simply an tragic incident due to some maniac getting possetion of a gun. Some may argue that the events of that day may not have taken place if firearms weren't readily accessible, but I feel as though if the attacker really wanted to hurt you, they'd have a number of scenarios in which to going about excuting that plan and doing so, not just by using a gun. The reality is that there are lunatics in this world, but by blaming the second amendment solely on that situation I think is a bit far–fetched.
I agree with you to you an extent. Even if it were reversed people would still have access and use guns. I do however think that if guns never existed that we'd perhaps live a more peaceful existence. Perhaps.
Rebekah T. Online- I believe that people should have a right to bear arms. I think that people should have to pass a psycological exam first. This way the crazy people would not end up with guns.
Rebekah T.-online. In response to Shannon H. I believe also in what you are saying about how violent people will always have a weapon. It just shows that that s more reason for us to protect ourselves.
Deidre C. Online: I believe that if someone wants to harm others or themselves they will find a way to do it even if it isn’t with a gun/pistol. I believe that this amendment should not change. We need to be able to protect ourselves, families, and property. The world we live in is, in my opinion, in turmoil. I remember when one of my former classmates brought two shotguns to school and held the classroom hostage. He was in high school and just brought the guns on the bus. Those who own guns should put them in a gun safe to prevent others from accessing them. In conclusion, the issue is that someone who is unstable mentally used the weapon to do harm to another person.
sbaty If you take guns away from people then the only people with guns will be criiminals. I am a Corporal in the United States Marine Corp. You would be completely out of your mind if you do not think that I am armed one way or another. I always have a pocket knife on me and I have a pistol i carry when I deem it prudent to have. I do not flash my guns or knifes I dont tell people i walk by hey i got a gun even thou I do. Many of my friends have ridden in my car not knowning what was locked in the glove box and thats the way i want to kep it. The state of georgia allows me as a US military memebr to do such a thing. They figure if I am trusted with protecting your freedom then i can be trusted to carry and conceal a firearm. The Corp has a saying,"I'd rather have it and not need it then, need it and not have it." I do not plan on defending myself ever but i have the ability to do so if i must. plain and simple their should have been a Marine there and this would not have happened. Do I think we could have stronger gun laws???? yes, I see no problems making laws stricter on who can and cannot have what or how long or how many hoops they have to jump thru to get things. Do i believe in outlawing guns? the answer is no.
Deidre C. Online Response to oyebola o. Online: I don’t agree with your statement that police should be the only ones to carry guns. There are corrupt police officers and there are corrupt citizens. I would want to have my gun ready if my life, family, or property were being put in the crosshairs. If I lived in a country where only the police had the guns then honestly I wouldn’t feel “safe”. If the only person to have a gun were a police officer then my life is in their hands. I would rather have some control of my well being if I were in a situation where I needed to protect myself against someone who wishes to harm me or my family and one way to do this is to have my own gun.
I believe that people should have the right to bear arms. The only thing I say is that people should do background checks on people trying to buy guns. If they have a dangerous background, they shouldn't be able to buy them. If they have no record of violence, they should be able to buy them. That's just my opinion though.
I believe that prohibit the right of bear arms won't help in reducing the levels of violent deaths.These measures are not fully effective, its afficacy is partial, and can lead to a reduction in the number of deaths but not a total elimination of violent deaths. This is because the factors that lead to violence, but still incompletely understood in a varied and in any event no policy affects everyone. The politics of gun control can reduce homicides by accidental household reasons,accidental deaths, homicides committed by people who are not habitual criminals, in situations of anger, fear of violence, temporary loss control use of alcohol or other substances, etc. It may also reduce the violence of people who are not usually criminals, when for some reason a first degree murder: the process of of acquiring a weapon can give adequate time for reflection. Much lesser extent affect violent acts committed by repeat offenders. These criminals are relatively easy to acquire weapons, even when they are illegal.
Christopher K-Online If we were to remove the second amendment, I believe that this blog question would then be about acts of violence by human beings. A firearm is only a materialistic thing. It is not something that can shoot itself. The person, who is carrying the firearm and chooses to use it as an act of violence, is the danger to the community. There are many people who choose to misuse their rights to firearms, and there are some who uses them correctly. It is the right of choice that was violated in Arizona. Imagine if the gunman was to go on a rampage and he was the only one carrying a firearm, then it would have been multiple deaths. Unless police officers or whoever were also carrying them as well to protect the people of Arizona. The gunman had a choice, whether or not it was with a firearm or a house butter knife, if he wanted to commit violence, then it still would have happened.
Christopher K, response to Natavius F. I completely agree with you. We can only blame the insanity of humanity for this incident. We have forgotten that guns and war is what gave this country our freedom. It is also the same thing that helped this country to be protected.
I agree with you, the existence of multiple types of weapons, all are designed to kill.Therefore, the term "defensive weapons" or "personal defense weapons" is an understament, as they are only defensive in so far as they are also offensive. All depends in each individula way to use it or abuse it.
joy online Am a very peace loving person so ,i do not believe in right to own arms,but i feel the police should be the only organisation to sell arms so that whoever that wants to buy will be totally questioned and examined to avoid all these crazy people killing innocent people.Too many right kills too.
joy online Response to Deidre-i agree with you that gun or no gun,people will still harm others or themselves, but i do not suscribe to high school student bringing gun to school.how did he get the gun?if you happen to own a gun ,it should be kept in a place where its just you that can have access to it.To sum it all, its only God that can protect us from peoplelike Jared lee,Major Ahmed and his likes.
I believe that people should have the right to own a gun but there should be restriction and control over who can own a gun.Guns are dangerous and should be kept out of the hands of the wrong people.This would ensure that criminals are left out, but the people that are legally able can have no restriction on their rights.
It was an unfortunate event, For sure. But it does not negate the fact that it was a human being that pulled the trigger. In all honesty, the privilege laid down by the second amendment is exactly that. A Privilege. Guns are not the killers, People kill people. No matter your stance on this issue, a Firearm is designed to fire a projectile at great distances. That is it's purpose. The CHOICE of direction in which the firearm is pointing when it is fired, is the ultimate decision.(WAR or PEACE) Being from Kennesaw GA, it is the law to own a firearm if you are a home owner for defensive purposes. When this law was originally instated by the city, Crime dropped in percentage dramatically. On a national scale, the purchasing and sales of firearms are restricted on a massive level and most people don't even take the time to realize this. They take other peoples word for it. When it comes to a firearm related incident, you will find that those weapons are typically not registered with the government and possessed illegally. Those who follow the rules are typically not the problem though; even with changing variables. Murder is a horrible thing and watch it on the news is jaw dropping. But are you honestly effected by it, or do you pick up your coffee mug and continue reading your paper?
Steven S Online: I believe that it is our constitutional right to bear arms. Maybe more strict background checks should be in check or some way to prevent or decrease the possession of illegal arms. Like making sure at gun shows that not just anyone can buy the weapons there. Alot on the stolen guns found in northern states get tracked back down to GA.
Ann K. I believe that although all America's do have the right to bear arms, the right should be limited to those who are mentally qualified to hold a gun. these days its incredibly easy for a psychologically troubled person to get their hands on a Gun, but if we as a country become more strict on who is can get their hands on a handheld then the country would be a lot safer.
Steven S Online in response to Shannon H: I also believe that even if their are, say, more strict gun laws, killers will always have another way to kill someone. As long as there are people their will be killings. So in order to feel safe we have the right to protect ourselves with guns, and if the misuse of the weapon happens the appropriate consequence will follow.
I agree that people should be allowed to bear arms. I think about the women who are raped and people who are murdered by sick people and realize that if they were armed they may still be alive. Although, I feel that one should be able to be armed I do believe the government should be more strict on the way a person is able to access a weapon. I think people should be evaluated psychologically to see their mental status before being able to carry a weapon. I also believe that the laws incriminating criminals who sell weapons illegally should be harsher. Longer jail sentences and higher bails as well as longer probation periods.
I like the way you explain how a gun does not shoot by humans do. I also like the way you question on how people care. To be completely honest I am truly emotionally moved by the news but I tell myself that is life and continue my day. If you were emotionally affected by every murder that happens in the world, you'll end up killing yourself, emotionally or physically.
Although the second amendment was written in a time when our government was just beginning and there was not a police force or military or security guards for that matter, I still believe that people should have the right to do just about anything they want to do as long as it does not cause another person harm or hindrance. A similar incident could have occurred just as easily if Rep Giffords had been conducting her "meet the public" in a State that does not have a hold and conceal law such as Arizona. I am for a very extensive background check and proper procedures for a person to obtain a firearm, although it is really a mute point in this day and age where you can pretty much get whatever you want via the web.
In Response to Brett: Nicely put. And that last shot stung just a little. All of these things that we see in our face on a daily basis is nothing more than what was happening 100 years ago, but (as we've all heard a million times) now that the media is ever-present we see and hear of it.
Jonah P. Online I believe that everyone whom the law considers fit should be allowed to bear arms. These rights can be taken away from people who our court rules unworthy of having the right to bear arms. No matter the circumstances if someone wants to cause bodily harm on another person they are going to find a way to do that. Even if they do not have the right to buy a gun or carry one there are always ways to obtain a firearm. All that is going to happen if the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens are revoked is that only criminals are going to have guns. The good citizens who use them for protection of thier family or even maybe to kill and provide for thier family are going to lose thier right and the criminals are not going to follow the laws anyway.
I think that the if there was ever a time to repeal the second amendment; it would have been decades ago. At a time when the world was a different place. Now with everything being so easily accessible thru the Internet & the black market; there is no way to prevent anyone who wants a gun from having one! Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people! I agree with some of the previous comments in that to legally obtain a gun, there should be an extensive background check and maybe even a mental health analysis, but like i previoulsy stated: there's always the black market and the Internet! The argument always goes in circles! It's a no win
Jonah P. Online in response to Ann K Ann I agree that people should have to be mentally evaluated before obtaining a permit for a gun but on the other hand anyone that wants a fire arm is going to be able to obtain one. It is so easy for criminals, psycho's, and even children to get thier hands on a gun. I really dont think that with or without the right to bears arms is really going to keep anyone from obtaining what they desire
what happened in arizona was tragic and prayers are the people who lost their loved ones.I agree with natavius f who does not feel the second amendment law which gives citizens the right to bear arms should not be abolished.Guns do not kill poeple,people with guns kill people because their will always be some idiot doing something stupid so if someone committs a crime they should be punished the innocent shouldn't pay by taking away their right to bear arms
James O. online While the events in Arizona were tragic and deplorable, they were carried out by a seriously troubled lunatic. IF GUNS WERE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WOULD HAVE GUNS!!!! The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, PERIOD. It doesn't give you the right to go out and blast somebody who you don't agree with or ticks you off! If a person sets their mind on committing an act of violence or evil, they will find a way to do it. But changing the rights afforded to us in the Constitution is not the answer. If someone were to break into my house with evil intentions on his mind, and I wasn't armed, what would I do? Try to reason with him? Ask him to pray with me? Should I bring a knife to a gunfight? No thank you. NO THANK YOU! Once I watched two commercial airliners fly into those buildings ten years ago, my outlook on the world changed. Earlier that year my first born, my little girl came into my life. I now have two children who I would do anything in my power to protect, anything. I pray for the souls of the innocent people who lost their lives this weekend. But i do not believe taking the right of decent, responsible citizens to bear arms is the answer. I know my rhetoric will come across to some as harsh. But i strongly support and believe in the Constitution and the rights it affords the citizens of this country. Guns don't kill people...people kill people. Just ask Charlton Heston.
I feel that even of we did not have the ability to bare arms some person would still find a way to harm the next. The bottom line is to always protect yoruself and be very careful of your surroundings you never know what might happen.
Hello, Guns do not kill people; people kill people. It is completely unreal that a person could shoot an innocent bystander without any conscience, however eliminating the right to bear arms would be absurd. If there is a will there is a way; If guns are eliminated something will immediately be put in its place. I believe that the laws on a person in illegal possession or involved in illegal possession of a firearm, should be intensified. Also, before issuing a gun permit a person should be thoroughly evaluated. A full mental evaluation, thorough routine drug tests, as well as approved logical reasons for needing a gun, and a criminal background check should all be administered in order to receive a gun permit. Society is turning into a slum and I believe most people feel safer with the power of a gun in his or her possession. This law is never going to be appealed. It would be too hard, law enforcement would never drop their guns if regular citizens had to. There would be too many exceptions and way too many dangerous illegal incidents involving guns, so leave the law alone and send the crazy people to the nut house.
Amanda H: I used to be very pro gun bans, however within the debates and arguments I've had with others I can easily say that I am pro gun ownership. These debates made me realize that the scenario. Law abiding citizens, should a gun ban be put in place, would follow the law. The people that do not follow the law would still have guns, and further endanger the people that were willing to follow the law and give up their right to bear arms. In the current situation, I believe if the gunman had encountered anyone who had a carry conceal license and a legally loaded weapon, he would not have killed as many people as he did. It makes me wish that Gifford could carry conceal herself, or that at least one law enforcement officer had attended this meeting. Encouraging carry conceal can definitely make an attacker hesitate before carrying out a malicious plan on the basis that anyone they attack may have the capability able to defend themselves. Also, if a gun clerk even THINKS you would be ignorant with a weapon, they will absolutely refuse to allow you to purchase a weapon from them. I've seen it done many times. They know how important it is to protect others, and the rights of citizens as well- else they would be out of a job.
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." -George Washington
JamesO.online in response to KarimotA., I agree with what you said. And so does the law that prohibits convicted felons from legally purchasing and registering a firearm.
I feel that what has happened in Arizona is both devastating and unfortunate. However, I strongly believe it is the right of the people of the U.S. to choose whether or not they would like to bare arms. Because in a situation one would need fire arms for protection and not have the ability to access these fire arms that will also be a devastating situation. I believe in this situation "the guns" aren't the issue. I'm not to sure what that guy had going on but he definitely has some issues that definitely could have been addressed prior to his outburst. I feel he handled whatever he was going through completely wrong, along with the other terrorist prior to him.
The problem is more so the people than the guns. Guns don't power themselves.That's all I'm saying. Until people change whats in their hearts these things will happen ever so often. Because if you take away the guns, the next thing you'll here is people getting stabbed to death or poisoned. We as people need to change.
In Response to Karlie
- I 100% after typing my comment looking at yours pretty much confirms my belief. Nice idea, mental evaluations should be done probably wouldn't stop much but it indeed would help.
-everyone has the right to bear arms for prevention and protection of there lifes to also their country. I think it wouldnt be as bad if all the citizens picked up weapons like the border patrol and fought back against the cartel and voilent immegrants
Esther B online. That is my bigs worried all times about firearms readily accessible to people in this country. In under developed countries people do not have firearm accessible. They used man strength to attack each others instead of firearm. And the person can fight back if they are strong,but firearm can take life in a second.So i think it will be better if citizen are not allow to have firearm,but people in uniform which are police office, military etc.
Denice C. on line... I think everyone has the right to bear arms. However, if a person wants to hurt or distroy someone they will go to any extremes to do so, take for instance 9/11/2001. That day a lot of innocent lives were taken that day. Look different events that has happened since 9/11, the mail has been tampered with having powder on some of the letters, the courthouse killing in Atlanta, and the latest being in Arizonia. I feel if someone wants to go and a public place and distroy by take a human life they go to any extremes to do this. It does not necessarily have to be with a gun. Let's look a few years back when a man in Atlanta ran over the people as they were walking into McDonald's restuarant, and then at the Olympic's at Olympic part in Atlanta the homemade bomb. It is really sad that people have to worry about going in public places. It is really sad what this world has become to be. I wished there we someway or somehow we could take all the illegal voilance out of the world. I don't see that happen until the end of time happens and we are all standing before our heavenly father.
Denice C. online responding to Esther B....I have to disagree with you about people not bearing arms. If I recall last week a officer getting shot and the crimal stealing his car. If it was against the law to carry arms do you know how many officers would get shot or overpowered by the crimals. There are other ways for the wrong person to get guns. Yes, it worries me when I go to a public place such as the mall. However, this is where you put your faith and God and ask him to watch over you. Also, as I mentioned in my response, there are other ways for the crimal to do crimal attacks. Since Christmas, we have had different things throwed over the bridge on I-75 causing one car to wreck when someone threw a bike over the bridge.
Leslie Z. Online-I do believe that citizens should have a right to own their own gun. The Arizona shooting was very tragic, but it was a freak accident. Even if the government were to ban guns, the kind of people who are set out to hurt others, will always find another way to get what they want. If they are the kind of person that would take an innocent persons life, they are certainly not going to follow laws.
Leslie Z Online- In response to Karlie- I couldn't have said it better myself. Horrible people will always find ways around the system. If the right to bare arms was taken away, the trouble and havoc would out weigh the benefits. I don't think the Govt would ever actually go through with it, it would cause way to much question, anger, and consequences.
I do agree with the Corporal in the United States Marine Corp. Everyone who either has a gun or not will be armed in some shape, form or fashion. So, if you pull guns away what other weapon do you think will be an issue for the world? Guns are NOT the only problem.
Denice C. online... I agree 100% with James O. There is nothing I would not do to protect my children and grandchildren. I would probally take a bullet that was meant for one of them. This is where family and unity comes in affect. Taking away ones rights of owning a gun is not the answer. Yes, there is other ways for some mean and cruel person to distroy and distruct a families life. I think this is really sad.
Mysti C. Online-I feel that everyone should still have the right to bear arms. A better way is needed to do more of a thorough background check before a person gets a gun. They also should make a limit on how many guns a person is allowed at one time. People should always have the opportunity to protect themselves and defend their property. Things like the Tucson shooting is a very bad decision that a person made and lives were lost, but we still need our rights to bear arms. I do send my prayers to the lives and the families of the Tucson shooting that was affected by the tragedy. Really in that type of situation, we need guns, so maybe someone could've took that shooter down.
Mysti C. Online In response to Leslie Z. Online- I agree with that statement because if a person wants to hurt someone, they are with or without a gun. People with the ability to mass murder, will always find ways to kill, just like bombers. They want to get rid of guns, but I do not see them getting rid of things to create bombs. Of course certain things are just impossible to do and that is when a more intelligent solution is needed. The Tucson shooting was a freak accident, just like so many freak accidents that have occurred over the years and people always want to go overboard to find a solution. We as people need to become more ready in defending ourselves from people like the Tucson shooter at any given moment.
Julie A. Online Evil is all around us and always will be. There will always be bad people who will commit violent crimes with or without guns. If the government outlaws guns then the good people of America would not be able to protect themselves. I think that, after this tragic event, we should be encouraged to buy more guns. Just think if someone there would have had a gun then Loughner probably would not have managed to kill as many people as he did. In addition, if the government did outlaw guns, the corrupted people would just find other ways to hurt or kill someone, and we would be left defenseless. If the government outlaws guns because one crazed bad man killed someone, does that mean that when somebody gets stabbed to death that knifes will be outlawed too? I believe that we should definitely keep the constitutional amendment that gives us the right to bear arms. We can’t overreact just because some maniac decides to kill someone.
Julie A. Online in response to Mysti C. you are completly right Mysti. there should be more through background check on people. Also, that needs to be a limit of selling guns to mentally unstable people. If this Loughner guy did have something mentally wrong with him then he should not have been able to access a gun. I agree with you in saying that just because someone makes a bad decision it does not mean outlawing guns is the solution.
Hello, Guns do not kill people; people kill people. It is completely unreal that a person could shoot an innocent bystander without any conscience, however eliminating the right to bear arms would be absurd. If there is a will there is a way; If guns are eliminated something will immediately be put in its place. I believe that the laws on a person in illegal possession or involved in illegal possession of a firearm, should be intensified. Also, before issuing a gun permit a person should be thoroughly evaluated. A full mental evaluation, thorough routine drug tests, as well as approved logical reasons for needing a gun, and a criminal background check should all be administered in order to receive a gun permit. Society is turning into a slum and I believe most people feel safer with the power of a gun in his or her possession. This law is never going to be appealed. It would be too hard, law enforcement would never drop their guns if regular citizens had to. There would be too many exceptions and way too many dangerous illegal incidents involving guns, so leave the law alone and send the crazy people to the nut house.
The shooting in Tucson was a horrible nightmare for America and my heart goes out to all the families that are going through the terrible pain of losing loved ones. I don’t believe that guns by themselves are dangerous, but the people behind them can be. If someone is out of their mind then they will do something completely irrational and sometimes others are caught in that person’s actions. It just goes to show you that guns are indeed misused, but I do believe in the fourth amendment for it gives us the right to protect ourselves from people who want to harm us and the people that we care about.
Christian B. Online in response to Rebekah T.-online
I totally agree with what you are saying. People that go to buy guns should be examined to see if they have any major mental problems. I think that everybody should get a psychological examination before they by a gun and they should have their doctor verify that they are capable of wielding a firearm.
Karlie online in response to Julie, I agree that a higher power in society should be granted the power to issue firearms, but certainly not the police. I believe that police hold enough power in society and just because he or she has a badge, does not make them fit to hand over guns. They allow people to get by with more than they should and sometimes they go too extreme against petty crimes. Granted they do protect us, we all know that policemen are powerful enough, they don't need the extra power of issuing handguns. I believe it should be left up to mentally fit government officials, it shouldn't be taken lightly. It is honestly beyond sad to not be able to trust very many, including government and government appointed security, but there has got to be a more managed, and secure way to hand out guns. Also, what if we did something more extensive to the trace of a gun? Instead of serial numbers, what about GPS systems on guns over a certain size? Sounds crazy, but maybe then, the use of a person with a gun can be followed more closely.
Jonathan Self, I think having the right to have guns is a tricky subject to debate. Guns absolutely is necessary for protection. People however do abuse this right. And for the people who abuse it should be delt with indefinitely. Keep fire arms.
Vrixton P. Online: I don't believe they will ever remove the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights was written as a guarantee to a very scared population recently out of war that the government would be fore the people and of the people rather than being a force of oppression against them. As stated in the Declaration of Independence [which, even though it has no legal bearing, it is good for analyzing the sentiment of the times], it is the duty of the people to overthrow governments that have become tyrannical. Of course, things have changed since then, and our government is not yet the kind of tyrannical that demands violent overthrow. Even so, it is necessary that the people be given their right to bear arms, that they may defend themselves [from thieves and muggers now, as compared to 'savages' then] not only from a government that may become unbearable in the future, but from other people who may be able to end their lives before the police can be present. In a time when people die in fires because the Fire Department comes by and sees no smoke, and people die of medical problems because of the incompetence of emergency workers, who is to say that the police are any more reliable? However, I do believe that gun shows should alter their format a bit. The gun sellers should be registered with the government, and the gun sellers should require some sort of proof of sanity from the buyer. Normal gun sellers are required to do background checks, but they should also be required to ask for a mental evaluation. Not everyone has the maturity or discernment to use a gun. Power, after all, corrupts and what greater power is there than that of controlling life and death? In addition, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, which will make the problem or armed robbery even worse and even deadlier. As proof, we can turn to drugs. Marijuana is illegal, yet thousands, perhaps even millions, or people use it on a regular basis, and drugs fuel gang violence and also attract gangs to this area or that. Were drugs legal, many people would likely give up the habit because it no longer holds the allure of 'sticking it to the man' that it does now; it loses the mystique of fighting the establishment.
@Michele G.: Precisely. I feel like people have lost their sense of responsibility.
Bearing arms can be necessary...depending on individual circumstances, of course, but, isn't that the true issue at hand! What does every individual want? Why do they each want? How do they get?...I can only say we, as a society, have MUCKED UP from the beginning when it comes to guns. In an organized society, I can only wish that from the very beginning we had issued a weapon upon a "personal" firing of. What I mean is...Ok...issue weapon/gun, but...with finger print/age requirement, and as technology allows, that this fingerprint ONLY allows for the actual firing of the weapon, and only one weapon per person desiring to purchase. With this in hand, there would be no illegal selling/buying, there would be no firing randomly of weapons without knowing EXACTLY who used them (due to needing of single-fingerprint of said owner/purchaser, and there would be NO gun-related crimes/issues that cannot be traced/studied. Glass half empty or full, what do you think?
I think that the second ammendment whichs allows people the right to bear arms is the right way to go. I think that people have the right to protect themselfs, after what happened in arizona I think that people would be crazy not to carry a weapon.I have to say that i dont think that its okay that everyone carrys a weapon because some people just shouldnt be aloud to, they just go crazy when they get or what they feel like is a little bit of power.
Although the shooting in Arizona is tragic there are instances like this all over the world, even if firearms weren't readily available they would have found another way to commit these horrible acts.
I don't believe we should all be punished for the ignorance of few people that live lawless lives.
In response to liljon0426. I have to say i absolutely agree with what you said. I think that gun are definitely nessacery but some people do abuse the laws. But what can u really really do about that.
In response to Mysti C's post to a degree I agree with you but then on the other end of things I don't. The government is already too far in our personal lives I don't believe they should be any deeper than they already do simply we may bear arms. Not only that people are too easily becoming convicted felons for petty crimes and are unable to bear arms how is that right? If we are going to let them dig deeper into our lives so that we may be granted something we are promised by the costitution where will it end?
@Rachel C.: I think it's a lovely idea. However one must also bear in mind that as technology progresses, so do the skills of hackers. To have a gun which can be fired only by the person with that exact fingerprint would likely result in dishonest people getting older guns off the black market or taking apart the guns and removing the technology which locks them to one individual. It's one of those unfortunate side-effects of the triumph of human will: a person will find a way to do what s/he seeks to do, be it good or bad, and despite consequences.
Vrixton P Online: blast, I posted that last comment "@ Rachel C.: I think it's a lovely idea" without attaching my name to it. I'm so accustomed to having an account lol.
You said, "Those that dont have a gun and stay out of trouble are still living at peace because their trust is in God." What about those 9 people who were murdered in Arizona? They were living in peace and were not armed. Why, then, were they killed? Did they die because they didn't trust God enough? If one of them had been armed, they could have shot the shooter and maybe there would not have been 20 victims.
God gave us brains to think and use tools to help make our lives more peaceful and secure. It is up to use them.
For example, do you lock your car? Your house? Or do you just trust God to keep people out? Do you go to the doctor when you are ill or do you just trust God to keep you healthy and heal you from disease? Do you pick up total strangers off the side of the road and give them a ride because you trust God to protect you? Each time you take a proactive measure to protect yourself and your property, is it a sign that you don't trust God, that your faith is lacking? I don't understand your thinking.
In response to @, since I do not know any more info... MUCHO appreciation... I sense I may be responding back to a male/female who has knowledge on how to take apart/put together a fire-arm. The technology, I, personally would have in place would have this in consideration alreay (biometric tech.). In fact...if someone were to tamper with the weapon, it would "cease to fire" at all! Again, as you stated...where there is a will...right!
In my view I am for still having the right to bear arms. However, there has got to be better restrictions on how a person can buy or acquire a gun. Other than that i can not really think of a way to get a ban on them. Cause no matter what people will always find a way to acquire a gun.
In response to Rachel C. I love your assessment of how to issue a gun to a person. With technology getting more advanced i could definitely see that as a plausible solution. It would really make it more difficult for criminals and would solve so many issues. Great idea!
Hmmm....maybe we are trying to rationalize the irrational. The young man that shot and murdered 20 people in Tuscon was insane. His rationale for killing those people was way outside of the norm. Why didn't someone see the signs that this man was going to commit a violent act? Why didn't anyone foresee the Fort Hood masacre or Virginia Tech massacre? These horrific incidents were virtually unforeseeable. There are always going to be insane people. There has always been a struggle between good and evil. There always will be. Life is never going to have a guarantee of complete safety.
I believe that if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns. Do we want more government control? Are we becoming sheep in the U.S? I do not want more government intervention and regulation in my life. How can a person live with themselves if they are afraid to defend their family and property? It is not enough to rely on law enforcement agencies to keep us safe. What about self- esteem? What about living with yourself after being assaulted due to being defensless? It is unrealistic to expect law enforcement to be where we need them at all times. We must be able to protect ourselves if necessary.
Perhaps one of the most compelling examples against gun control can be taken from the Kennesaw, GA gun law. In the early 80's, a city ordinance was passed requiring every head of household to own a gun. The crime rate dropped despite a large increase in the population. It is important to realize that law abiding citizens are not comitting violent crimes.
KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.
In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.
The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."
-Sorry i wrote the wrong input for a different issue.. I again personaly believe that guns are very useful.. but there are some evil people in this world.. but i dont think we should get rid of weapons and the right to bear arms because of that. they will still have guns. like drugs, they are illegal but drugs are everywhere
Ok, what does the Second Amendment really mean? Does it means that all people should have the ability to possess whatever arms they wish?
The States-rights view is that the Second Amendment merely guarantees the states the rights to organize, militias, and citizens the right to join.( militias here means any armed force raised for the common defense; not just the national guard.) The individual-rights views is that the Secons Admendment means what it says: Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.
Obviously, there is a problem with criminals haviong access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too need a gun for self-defense, but this is a vicious cycle.
The problem with guns is fairly straightforward; they make it easy to kill or injure a person.
In the case of murder in course of other crime3s, it is obvious that the presence of a gun makes a crime more potentially lethal. And in the case of of acquaintance murders, the presense of a gun makes it easier to kill, makes the killing more instanantaneous, more detached, makes the killer have to think not at all about what he is doing. In short, people are not always thinking rationally, and when there is a gun around, it is easier for an irrational person to do great damage.
To sum it all up, I feel that if the laws hadn't changed and guns weren't so easily accesible that crime would be down. But I can't say that the shooting in Arizona wouldn't hjave happened, because if a person meditates on something long enough, it will manifest in their minds, and action will take place be it good or bad.
The Second Amendment was put in the Constitution for a reason. It was so everyone could have the opportunity to protect themselves and their families. I strongly agree that we should be given this opportunity and not left defenseless. More so, I believe everyone, not including mentally disturbed or criminals, should have a fire arm. Criminals will get what they need and want, if its legal or not that's why they're called criminals. So if more noncriminals carried firearms I believe crime would actually go down. Perfect example is the gun law ordinance passed in Kennesaw Georgia in 1982. It requires everyone to own at least one hand gun with ammunition. Ever since 1982 the population has risen from 5000 to 35,000 but the crime rate has since declined.
I believe the laws we have now should be enforced. Law enforcement seems to be out of control when it comes to enforcing laws on the books. Drugs and illegal immigration are two areas where laws are not enforced. Illegal gun sales can be compared to the sale of street drugs. Pawn brokers often buy cheap unregistered guns at gun shows, etc. and then market them like illegal street drugs. Minors and convicts are never supposed to be able to purchase firearms but still obtain them through illegal sales.
I believe in the right to bear arms. The problem is not the accessability of firearms, but the people who choose to bear them and how they exercise their freedoms. There seems to be a lapse in enforcements of laws, and any sort of checks that find out who possesses firearms, and what their history or backround is.
Technology is probably the next step on our fight to keep arms within the proper citizens hands. The problem would have to be addressed very carefully though. Fingerprinting is simply not enough though. If a criminal or hacker wants to find a way around something, they generally do. Im not sure what the right solution really is.
It may not have happened in the way that it happened, but I definately think that if someone is bent on causing harm to someone then they will go to whatever means necessary to get the job done. It was a terrible thing that happened, but taking guns away is not the answer. If you take away guns from law-abiding citizens, then the only ones that will have guns are the criminals. I saw a bumper sticker one day that made a lot of sense to me. It said "'If guns kill people then do pencils misspell words'" That made a lot of sense to me. It is not the guns, it's what is inside the hearts and minds of those that are using the gun or whatever weapon that they use. I don't really know the answer, but taking away our right to bear arms is not the answer.
James I completely agree with you. Guns do not kill people. People kill people. I don't know what it will take for people to realize that there is something wrong with these people. Something has gone wrong or snapped in them. Taking guns would never be the answer.
In response to Kecia B. I agree guns do seem to be the weapon of choice because it makes it easy to kill. but thats speaking on the behalf of the criminal you have to think about the victim. It makes it easier for the victim to handle the encounter with a gun. So lets just assume guns are banned. Someone breaks into a womans house with a knife, and even though she has a knife he's intimidatingly big with his knife. Now do you think she's thinking "now since he doesn't have a gun i have a fair chance" or do you think she's thiking, "I sure wish I had my gun to make the next person think twice when they see what what i do to him." You could easily be that victim.
We were given a right to bare arms over 200 years ago, and I think that right should remain. Yes, people do outrageous things with the freedom they are given, but why should my safety be put at risk because they cannot be responsible? If baring an arm became illegal, purchasing guns would turn into the new drug trade. People who want them them will get them whatever way they see fit. They will carry those guns with them whether it is illegal or not, and they will do whatever they please with those guns. No law is going to stop them. Taking away our right to bare arms is taking away my right to protect myself. If I chose to follow the law, I put myself at risk because there is no way I can protect myself from a man with a gun unless I am on equal footing.
JamesO. online in response to: whomever, This debate seems to rear its ugly head just after there is a horrifying crime carried out by a twisted individual. A knee jerk reaction always seems to be outrage and proclaiming, "well, if only..." The weapons or instruments used in any crime where murder is commited are not the reason these crimes happened. The descision to pull the trigger is made by the individual holding the weapon. I took my kids to the zoo last week. While there, we visited the reptile pavillion where all the worlds most venemous and deadly snakes and reptiles are on display. As I was reading all the descritions and scary facts about the Black Mamba, Diamondback Rattlesnake, King Cobra, etc. to my kids I noticed kind of an indifferent, ho-hum reaction. Until we came to, what the description plaque on the wall announced as "The Most Deadly Preadator on Earth"!!!!!! This got their attention. The plaque was right next to a large mirror. Amidst all these deadly, scary things, we were reminded that humans are the deadliest preadator this planet has ever seen and ever will see. Humans. Think about it. Think about history. The crusades. are you kidding me? More people have died on this planet in the name of religion than any other reason. The human mind is a tricky thing. It will make a descision, carry out an act, and rationalize it with itself. And then move on.... Take away guns? Won't matter. Won't work. All you would accomplish is seriously pissing off millions of people who manage to navigate the stress of day to day life without putting a bullet through someones head. Like me.
Rebecca Dasher. I believe that guns shouldnt be outlawed in our society. The people who kill other people have something mentally wrong with them. If guns were illegal, people would just find some other weapon to use. I think that the background check when buying a weapon should be way more extensive but this still wont stop the shootings because not all killers have a criminal background. Some just snap
Donna H. Online: I believe in the law of the land and therefore support the right to bear arms. On a personal note, I also have children in my house and therefore do not believe that is it safe to have guns in the house due to past experience.
When my 1st son was about 18 mos old, I was in the kitchen and heard a 'thump thump thump' coming down my stairs. It was the baby, dragging a rifle down the steps by it's barrel. It was at that moment, that I gathered all guns up and locked them in my trunk, then promptly gave them away.
I would be great to have stricter gun laws, before a gun can be issued, but then again true criminals don't observe gun laws anyway, so why bother.
Donna H in response to T. Moore: Agreed. Bad people are pretty inventive when it comes to harming others. Take Timothy McVey for example, he killed 168 people using only a rented truck, racing fuel and cattle feed. Outlawing guns will not solve the problem.
Rebecca M online In response to the second amendment, I believe there is a place in our society for this right. I think it was intended for American to be able to protect ourselves (which is undoubtly needed at times). If only police officers were the ones to be able to bear arms and someone comes into your home and tries to harm your family, there is not a police officer around and you need protection. But there is a lot of bad scenarios that can happen! After working in the healthcare field for a while now, I have seen alot of mentally ailed patients that have come to a place where they want to inflict harm on themselves or others. if a gun gets into the hands of someone with a mental illness it can possibly go to the bad place. That is why I support the right of the psychologists and psychiatrist to be able to put names on the list that cannot purchase a gun. But when it comes down to it and you have someone who is wanting to get hold of a gun to inflict harm on themselves or others they are going to find a way to get it!
Rebecca M online: In response to Steve: I had no idea that there was a law passed in Kennesaw regarding owning a firearm! At first it seems crazy but then it kinda makes sense! If I were a criminal and I knew there was a firearm in every home I would think twice before committing crime! Seems like they are were on to something!
I agree that guns should not be outlawed, they are of good use. Certain individuals should just be payed close attention to, such as ones with a thick criminal background or who have a psychological disorder. I also think guns should be put on a much more restricted sale though instead of just selling to whomever. Also agreed with Donna H and T. Moore criminals these days are more creative than using a gun.
Brandon Cass- The 2nd amendment not intended to declare that everyone should own guns, it was intended to allow the colonist to protect themselves. However, I feel that our Constitution stands for the rights of the people, and they should have the right to own a gun if they want. Many own guns that should not. MAny people also have children, and drive who should not. If someone wants a gun and can not obtain one legally, there are always ways to get them. Look at all the felons who are found with guns. There are many ways to illegally obtain guns, without background checks, if someone wants them.
Melina G. ONLINE- While I believe both sides could be eaily debated. I agree with the right to bear arms. While the Tuscon shooting was terrible I believe that that guy was just out to kill. It did not matter to him if he use a gun, a knife, or his own hands. He was capable of murder. So I support the right to bear arms for the simple fact that we need to be protected from people like that who just want to hurt/kill others.
Response to Brandon Cass- I agree with you when you say that many people own guns that should not. It is like the point I made about that guy killing whether it was with a gun or not. People are going to aquire guns if that is really what they want, legally or illegally. So once again we need that protection in a case that we are faced with these people.
SamanthaL.Online In response to RebekahT.Online I absolutely agree with you. My main concern with people owning guns is that they can walk into any store, just about, and purchase one. It's not a very hard process to get a permit.
SamanthaL.Online. I believe we should have the right to bear arms. I think it should be more of a process in order to obtain weapons though. There should be background test, exams, and the federal government should be the ones distributing them. You shouldn't be able to walk into a pawn shop or purchase one off of Ebay. The employees of the stores the federal government sell the weapons from should be even more strictly examined and should have a long process before hiring. The postal office has a hiring process of almost a year, you shouldn't be able to obtain a firearm permit within a few months time.
Iesha B. -Online...In my opinion, I think that the only people who should be allowed to carry a weapon is the people who have probable cause to carry a weapon such as the people who are in areas where there is a high crime rate and the people who have a restraining order on people. I also think that before anyone starts to sell anyone a gun, they should give them a background check to make sure that the person isn't a killer.
JamesO. online in response to Samantha L. We have the right to bear arms but the federal government should distribute them? Anyone who has purchased a firearm knows that you go through a background check. If you are a convicted felon, sorry, no firearms. I don't believe the federal government should be the end all be all descision maker on who can have a firearm and who can't. Remember, a government that has the power to give you whatever you want,also has`the power to take away everything you have.
In Response to Natavius F. I agree that if the laws were changed the violence with hand guns would not be so high. The accessibility of hand guns would not be to such advantage. I also feel that when the laws changed that people who wouldn't normally own a hand gun went out and purchased one just to say they had one.
I feel that when the laws changed they should have also made the laws a little more harsher for the offenders that already had charges against them for gun violence.
Jordan Lewis-Regardless if firearms were not readily accessible, there would still be people with guns. Nothing can stop someone from having something that can be brought. As long as people have money and the means to do something they will find a way to do it. Yes maybe if they were illegal or something people would have a harder time getting them and yes maybe it would have made someone give up trying to buy one, but if the means are there and the determination is there you can find one with time.Regardless though there are other ways to kill a person even without a gun.
In Response to Iesha B. A background check would be good, but the fact is that anyone can get someone to buy it for them. How do most people get gun they really dont buy them most of the time. They are giving to them from some other source. Someone that has a good background could buy it for them, family,friends, or someone that they are threatening either way its still possible but it could make it a little harder to get a gun.
Julie S. Online We should have the right as American citizens to own a gun. It is our right to be able to use this gun to protect ourselves or our families, to hunt, or use it in some other recreational type of purpose. Unfortunately, there are those who use guns in the wrong way and that is what ruins it for everyone. I think there must be someway to have tighter security on campuses. Maybe this is an area that should be furter explored. There will always be ways that killers figure out how to kill besides using guns!
Julie s. online in response to SamanthaL. online I agree totally with what you are saying. If it was a little harder to obtain a gun, a longer process for getting a gun, and a longer waiting period, it might help cut down on the wrong people getting their hands on guns. Of course theres a black market available but still, getting a gun shouldnt be so easy!
I bealive that no matter if fire arms were accesible or not that the shooting would have still happened. some one who wants to do something this horrifying there is not much you can do too stop them . but if the goverment passed a law that sated every one should own and carry a fire arm it might not have happen. I mean if you were to walk in to a place that you new every single person there had some type of gun would you try too pull a gun out in a public place no cause your going to get shot. getting rid of guns want help the porblem with these mass muders not much we can do . but we all wish the these incedents would not happen .
I don't think that that the gov't is to blame because even other countries where people are not allowed to own guns,shooting is still going,bad people will always find ways to commit a crime. Margaret N.
Loan.N.Online. The world would be so much peacful if every country have a strick law for using arms. Having a arms in a bad person is very dangerouse for people around. But the arms that not can kill people, using only to protect someone from something is good. The arm that just can make a big noise to get help from people is good. Only police should have the arms, so they can protect people.
The atrocious shooting in Tucson, Arizona is indeed tragic. We must remember though that even in the hands of trained law enforcement officers, innocent people can be killed. Broadly speaking, I think that the second amendment argument is often used by proponents for firearm ownership to shut off the discussion. I am fortunate that I have not been in a situation that requires protection from an assailant. I know I would wish then that I had a gun of my own. I think private citizens should be allowed to protect them selves, but there should be control about the caliber of weapon sold to individuals.
Often times, those that don’t have guns, are the ones caught in the cross fire while going about their lives. I believe in God, so I put my trust in Him but what should atheist do? What is your argument for police who kill innocent people? Well, may I propose legalizing and mandating marijuana for all? Then we can all be peaceful happy people.
I fully support the 2nd amendment. I believe it's the person and not the intangible object that creates the mess. Even if there were more restrictions on guns, you would be able to access the weapons by other means. Guns are easy to come by. You can purchase one cheaply at a pawn shop or carry one illegally. Some areas of Georgia require you to own a gun if you are a homeowner. For all of us living in society the law abiding way, tighter restrictions on getting a license to carry or conceal would be easier. History has shown that this is a sticky situation and you can't completely omit certain "rights".
I disagree with you saying that only police officers should carry guns. There are some situations where cops aren't around or they don't respond to a call in time. If someone broke into your home harming yourself or a family member threatening your life, a gun would come in handy.
Guns aren't the only problem we have here. There's always the threat of other things ranging from a knife up to biological weapons.
Kevin G_Online response to Shannon: Excellent post Shannon, but to expand on the laws I would like to see stiffer penalties for even minor offenses. Give criminals (especially juveniles) a reason to think twice.
Kevin G_Online What happened in Arizona was a tragedy, but the answer is not to ban guns in America. The only people that would benefit are the individuals inclined to harm you for their own benefit. What needs to be addressed is the punishment that should be given to anyone who uses a firearm for the wrong reasons. To fix the problem we need to look at making the punishment much harsher.
Charlotte C online I think if guns are ready accessible or not they will still be more death and injury. I ready do not know which way to go we are now in the last days were things are ready going crazy. I just leave it on the mighty God.
Rochelle G Online. I believe we, as American citizens should have the right to bear arms. The guns are not the problem just certain people carrying them for unlawful purposes. Guns are used in sports and recreation not just killing each other. Perhaps government laws making it more difficult to purchase guns and more education would diminish the problem. I believe if guns were taken away there would be an even bigger problem. More guns sold on the black market.
Rochelle G Online in response to JamesO. Online. I found your comments very interesting but it led me to ask myself if we, people are under the influence of something to do the wicked things that we do? Are people possessed by something that causes great grief and destruction to others? I believe that they are – spirits! There are only two, good and evil. What possesses you to do what you do?
Caleb A-Louis. Online In the past as in the example of the "wild west" gun were for personal protection and were typically used properly. Today guns are far more efficient and dangerous. the right to bear arms should honestly go to those who can be considered enough to wield them. So, some random drunk with a bad history of being violent would never be allowed to have possession of a gun. though a citizen with both a license and a potentially clean record can.
Amanda H. Online to Caleb A-Louis. Online: I agree with this, and most gun store owners and clerks will not give weapons to anyone they feel may be irresponsible with a weapon- their jobs depend on it. If too many people are irresponsible with guns they know that that can put their livelihoods at risk, and this for others as well. That's why background checks, proof of licensing, and other verification is needed on top of a sound mind. Legal weapons dealers will not hesitate to refuse ammo or guns to anyone in their shop that they feel may abuse it. I've seen it done two times before in my short time overseeing- and they will refuse you on simple medical tests for any mental slightness as well.
Joshua L. Online This debate has many points on both sides but i do believe the bill of rights got it right. guns do have practical usage with hunting game and also for protection. Guns do harm due to holder, whether that be incompetence as with a minor just finding a gun or if the holder actually means to do harm. But guns are not the only weapon someone may use to do harm, someone can easily bring out a switch blade, so those who believe guns should be outlawed it will not solve the problem, people will just find another path to get to the problem. Although i do believe a psychological exam would be beneficial, it will not solve the problem either because people will just jump through the hoops without giving true answers. In response to oyebola o. I completely and utterly disagree. The government makes tons of money off of everything we trade including our time so you cannot base something becoming illegal off the basis of the government making money off of it. Police should be the only ones with guns? yeah because they have totally proven they are completely just hah. police brutality is rampant and you believe they should be the only ones with access to guns? You can have your peace in god while ill have my peace in my shotgun in my closet. we'll see who lives when someone breaks into our houses.
branom c. online in response to Natavius F. online
I could not agree more with natavius. Every one who feels the need to protect themselves should be able to purches an posses a fire arm. In my opinoin it is not the fire arm that kills people its who is on the other end holding the weapon
I think that people should be able to purchase guns and carry them around. They should do a background check to ensure saftey. But people who crazy enough to shoot someone for no reason are going to kill someone no matter if they have a gun or not and they would have a gun even if its against the law. We as citizens should be able to have protection for ourselves.
Kayla B. online. in response to margaret N. I couldnt agree with Margaret more. I think that whoever comitts the crime should be punished for the crime. Dont punish the sane people by taking their guns away.
Whether we take away this right or not, there is still going to be a way to gain access to guns. For some they may have to take an illegal route, which again is another issue to address. We can't control when a person is going to snap. For some going crazy is just blink away. I think that a way at managing gun control needs to be sought after, not merely taking away the rights of everyone.
Moiya H. Online I believe very much in the right to bear arms if your arm a law abiding citizen with the proper permits and registration. We must be held accountable for our own actions. Guns don't kill or attempt to kill people, people do. And anyone who says different should think about if that gun was never purchased and stayed on the shelf in the store, it wouldn't have shot anyone. And besides no one is a killer or attempted killer until they pull that trigger. the thought my be there but the action you choose is your own.
Alisha C. Online Americans should have the right to bear arms. Period. There should just be stricter laws and more hoops to jump through to purchase a gun. It's not the gun that causes the problem, it's the stability of the person using it or just plain carelessness.
Denice C. online in response to Loan N. There is not enough police in the world for everyone to have their personal bodyguard to protect them from people with guns and other crimes. I have a friend who is in law enforcement. He has a saying, "You can put a police officer on every street corner, and a crook is like a mouse". "If he can get his nose through the crack, he will commit whatever crime he has sit out to do." Other citizens needs to be able to carry guns as well, so they can protect themselves where the police officers are unable too. When guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns.
Denice C. online in response to Joshua L. Yes, I agree there is police brutality out there, but it doesn't hold a light to the police bruatality from the 1960's and back. It is up to our law enforcement agencies to police their own. I am familar with a recent case where an officer was dismissed for over acting. I praise departments like this!
Moiya H. Online In Response to Jordan Lewis: I agree with you that if the anti gun people get what they want and no one but law enforcement could have guns, people would find a way to but and sell guns. The price and risks goes up because no more background checks and it would be illegal. But there are plenty of people not able to have guns by law that do now. And if that person that gives up on going black market for an illegal gun, they'll just stab with a knife or smother with a pillow, and not to mention beat you with a baseball bat. And what can the law do about that???
In my opinion the right to bear arms is a fundamental part of our basic liberties. Gun laws should not be at question here; in fact if anything should be questioned it should be the profiling of individuals who may or may not pose a threat to themselves or others. We've seen this happen over and over again where individuals send off early warning signals that they are extremely mentally distressed. (Columbine High School Massacre -1999, & Virginia Tech. Massacre -2007) In both massacres the shooters all displayed early signs that there was something wrong. With a little intervention the outcomes quite possibly could have changed.
To simply blame guns and demand that they be removed from legal owners does not solve the real issue. We should look out and help those who may have some deep personal issues, and help those in need. If someone is at a state where they're willing to attempt a massacre, regardless of whether or not guns are legal they will stop at nothing to either obtain one or resort to other possible alternatives, such as bomb manufacturing.
In my opinion a harsher punishment will not prevent massacre like shootings caused by people who have completely overstepped the bounds of mental sanity. In fact, most massacres end in the shooter(s) turning their weapons on themselves because they expected to die anyways.
As I stated in my previous comment; we should focus on getting immediate help to those showing signs of mental distress. not necessarily isolate or demonize them, but monitor and reach out to them in an effort to help prevent further tragedies such as the Tucson, AZ shooting.
I partly agree with you. We shouldn't remove guns from law abiding citizens; however, to control the caliber sold wouldn't make much sense. A bullet regardless of it being .22 or .50 has the potential to kill, and that's what the intention is. Gun owners need to be responsible for their weapons. This means locking both the main firearm, it's magazines/clips, and ammunition separate from one another or in some locked storage compartment to prevent ease of access to other individuals, whether it be family, or a burglar.
Guns dont hurt people, its the idiotic people who cannot settle their problems or issues in other ways that hurt people.
Now a days guns can be easy to come by, either legally or illigally. Security should be the issue in the shooting in Arizona not the guns. If the president had been present at this event the security would have been tight. So with that beying said, is ones persons life worth more than others?
Courtney P. I believe that each U.S. citizen has a right to bear arms. Some civilians may take advantage of this by doing harm, but there will always be someone in this world like that. If civilians have an opertunity to help protect theirselfes and their loved ones by purchasing a gun then they should be aloud to do so. As for others who are against it, then they ccan disagree with it and just not bring the weapon into their household. As for the shooting that occured in Arizona and many other places; there will always be a tragic event occuring somewhere all the time in the world. It is not always a gun, people can use many different things as a harmful wespon. So, even if the U.S. decided to ban guns or make it harder to get I'm sure their will be a way for them to get around it.
Courtney P. In response to Shannon H. I like how you used other instiantces to back up what you believe. I agree with you on how if people want a gun to protect theirselves and there tangiables then they should have that right. Also how there are other ways to do harm besides using a gun, people are smart enough to come up with a way to use something as simple as a pen to hurt someone.
I have always been a "non-violent" person as long as I can remember. I was taught to avoid violence at all costs as I was growing up and this is a concept that I passed down to my children. Saying this, I believe that guns do not kill people but that people kill people.
I do not necessarily believe that the accessibility of guns plays a factor in violence. I think if guns were abolished, people would find other ways to kill each other. If the jails in the US were like the jails in, let's say.....CHINA or some other foreign country, I don't think we would have half of the violent act that we have in the US today.
I agree with you on regarding education. I believe that education is the key to solving almost anything and I am sure if more people were forced to maybe take a class and watch the visual effects of what being shot is like, maybe they would think twice before using the gun.
Nyrva B online: In the state of Georgia any individual with a clean background is eligible to carry a concealed weapon in any dwelling or area as long as they have a permit. With this can come many pros and cons. This law is beneficial to any honest individual who is in attempt to protect themselves or their household. A small percentage of individuals are put in a position where they have to protect themselves from criminals who intrude their personal property with intent to harm that person. The other percentage are individuals who are habitual criminals who have yet been caught committing a crime. This would be considered the con. Yet, it is very important for every person within the United States to have rights to posses a weapon but only in attempt to protect themselves from crime being committed against that person. Though the law can not totally control who has the legal right to posses a weapon, at least the ones who are ineligible to posses a weapon are a target for law enforcement in order to reduce crime within their local vicinity .
Nyrva B online, in response to James O: Your post really gave me something to ponder about. I agree, the weapon used to perform a crime is not the reason why the crime occurred. As long as humans exist, there will be crime with or without the accessibilty to guns.
I believe that anyone that has the right to own a gun and can easily access it will stay out of trouble for the most part. There is always that exception for the one person that proves me wrong, but if an individual has the right to own a gun without any law refusing them to do so, this will cause many problems, example A, thye incident in Tucson, Arizona.
Stephanie M. Online: I'm not sure how I feel about firearms being readily accessible. People should have the right to protect themselves, but anyone can use that excuse to buy a gun. If someone wants to use a gun to harm others they will find a way to get one whether it's leagal or not.
Stephanie M. Online in response to Rochelle G Online: I'm not sure if I agree with your first sentence, but I agree with the rest of your comment. I also don't see a solution to the World's problem with guns. Sadly, I think everyone has a time and a way to go.
In response to both Courtney and Shannon The tragedy in Tucson Az., I do agree, would have been attempted with or without a gun. The legality of guns in my opinion is not an issue. It was a tactic the perpetrator used to make a statement. While the masses of Americans view politics as just politics it is in fact a way for the majority to vote on which tangibles are more important and need to be protected by the government. Was this shooter wrong for using a gun to protect his tangibles? If we take the 2nd Amendment written in the late 1700’s and the fact a majority find it okay to shoot to protect tangibles; maybe he wasn’t. When the 2nd Amendment was written, tangibles were family, livestock, crops, farming land and slaves, are we protecting those same things or things comparable?
..."While owning firearms in this country is a right preserved by Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,something must be done to make it more difficult for firearms to fall into the wrong hands"...
Alicia online on response to Deidre C online. Girl I completely agree with what you said. I do not think it would be wise to only give guns to our ploice and military because your right there are corrupt police officers and military personel. I do think that it is wise to make it harder for "just anyone" to obtain an gun but I don't think it should be made impossible or illegal. I am very saddened by the shooting in AZ and my heart goes out to everyone affected, and the other historical shootings such as columbine, Virginia tech and Kent Statevery tragic as well and I feel like maybe more closely monitoring who is allowed a gun may make it a little less dangerous but who are we kidding? This is America and I dont care where you are there will always be crime and hatred and stupid people with guns doing unthinkable. things to innocent people
Blake Huffman This topic will always be an arguement because you have 2 types of people, people who follow the laws and people who dont. It would not be fair to take away guns to people like me who use them for everyday needs. I use my gun for hunting, so that i do not have to buy meat. Some like to have guns in their house for protection. Then you have people that use them for the wrong reason, but you can not tell me that guns kill more than DUIs do. People are always going to guns for the wromg reason but it would not be fair to take them away from the people that use them for their own needs. This is will always be an arguement that we will never get around.
There should never be gun control; the right thing to say is control the individual that does harm with guns. I have seen weapons used for the wrong reasons and it was never the guns fault, only those who pulled the trigger of the weapon. The second Amendment that our forefathers left for us, gave all Americans the right to bear arms. I realize that there have been many that have used that right to do harm, and those who have used that right and abused that right should be the only one to have that right removed from them and not anyone else. Lula D.
In refrence to Lula D. People who commit felonies and do crimes do get those rights taken away. Convicted felon's dont have the right to posses a fire arm.
Whille is is a terrable tragedy, I believe there should be minimal gun control and this should apply specially for convicted felony criminals. Guns do not kill. Those who pull the triger do, as the deranged individual did in Arizona. Including in the gun control law, should be a basic training course for the use and handling of all firearms to prevent the users from inflicting injury to themselves or other innocent individuals.
SP-Even thought the event that took place was very horrific I believe the right to bear arms should stay. In addition “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Therefore, we should focus more on the people gaining access to these deadly weapons.
LDjobo online I believe that people should have the right to bear arms. The only thing I say is that people should do background checks on people trying to buy guns. If they have a dangerous background, they shouldn't be able to buy them. If they have no record of violence, they should be able to buy them. That's just my opinion though. LDjobo
Shannon H:
ReplyDeleteI believe there is a sound reason that our Second Ammendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees each citizen the right to bear arms. I think that each citizen who desires to should be armed and able to protect their property from invaders, both foreign and domestic.
Regarding the Arizona shooter and others like him - there are more ways to kill people than to shoot them. Timothy McVeigh used explosives. Bad people will always have weapons. Good people should be allowed to defend and protect themselves against those bad people.
Anyone who does not want to own a gun doesn't have to, but for those who do not trust the government's ability to protect them or their property, they should be allowed to own guns. Any problems that are caused by their misuse should be accompanied by consequences as prescribed by law.
oyebola o.online
ReplyDeleteif this law can be reversed it will be awesome because vanity upon vanity all is vanity. Those that dont have a gun and stay out of trouble are still living at peace because theirtrust is in God. a little anger and the acess to gun can endangerpeoples lives.besides the government is making a whole lot of money onthis buying and selling of guns.as for the police should be only ones carrying guns not the citizens
in response toshannon
ReplyDeleteoyebola o.online
if imay ask shannon, what isthe sound reason behide the bill of right that was passed that gauranty each citizen the right to bear arms?
Natavius F. Online: When I first got news of the devastatingly bizarre ordeal that transpired in Tuscon, Arizona on January 8, 2011 I was stunned. A random man waltz up and began to opended fire onto the masses. As far as the second amendment to bear arms is concerned, I don't think it should be abolished because I feel one has all the right in the world to protect themselves from a attacker, assailant, and/or intruder. It's one's perogative. In regard to the Arizona shooting, that was simply an tragic incident due to some maniac getting possetion of a gun. Some may argue that the events of that day may not have taken place if firearms weren't readily accessible, but I feel as though if the attacker really wanted to hurt you, they'd have a number of scenarios in which to going about excuting that plan and doing so, not just by using a gun. The reality is that there are lunatics in this world, but by blaming the second amendment solely on that situation I think is a bit far–fetched.
ReplyDeleteNatavius F. Online. In response to Oyebola O.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you to you an extent. Even if it were reversed people would still have access and use guns. I do however think that if guns never existed that we'd perhaps live a more peaceful existence. Perhaps.
Michele G: The right to bear arms is as with anything else that is potentially dangerous. The total responsibility of the person abusing it.
ReplyDeleteRebekah T. Online- I believe that people should have a right to bear arms. I think that people should have to pass a psycological exam first. This way the crazy people would not end up with guns.
ReplyDeleteRebekah T.-online. In response to Shannon H. I believe also in what you are saying about how violent people will always have a weapon. It just shows that that s more reason for us to protect ourselves.
ReplyDeleteDeidre C. Online: I believe that if someone wants to harm others or themselves they will find a way to do it even if it isn’t with a gun/pistol. I believe that this amendment should not change. We need to be able to protect ourselves, families, and property. The world we live in is, in my opinion, in turmoil. I remember when one of my former classmates brought two shotguns to school and held the classroom hostage. He was in high school and just brought the guns on the bus. Those who own guns should put them in a gun safe to prevent others from accessing them. In conclusion, the issue is that someone who is unstable mentally used the weapon to do harm to another person.
ReplyDeletesbaty
ReplyDeleteIf you take guns away from people then the only people with guns will be criiminals. I am a Corporal in the United States Marine Corp. You would be completely out of your mind if you do not think that I am armed one way or another. I always have a pocket knife on me and I have a pistol i carry when I deem it prudent to have. I do not flash my guns or knifes I dont tell people i walk by hey i got a gun even thou I do. Many of my friends have ridden in my car not knowning what was locked in the glove box and thats the way i want to kep it. The state of georgia allows me as a US military memebr to do such a thing. They figure if I am trusted with protecting your freedom then i can be trusted to carry and conceal a firearm. The Corp has a saying,"I'd rather have it and not need it then, need it and not have it." I do not plan on defending myself ever but i have the ability to do so if i must. plain and simple their should have been a Marine there and this would not have happened. Do I think we could have stronger gun laws???? yes, I see no problems making laws stricter on who can and cannot have what or how long or how many hoops they have to jump thru to get things. Do i believe in outlawing guns? the answer is no.
Deidre C. Online Response to oyebola o. Online: I don’t agree with your statement that police should be the only ones to carry guns. There are corrupt police officers and there are corrupt citizens. I would want to have my gun ready if my life, family, or property were being put in the crosshairs. If I lived in a country where only the police had the guns then honestly I wouldn’t feel “safe”. If the only person to have a gun were a police officer then my life is in their hands. I would rather have some control of my well being if I were in a situation where I needed to protect myself against someone who wishes to harm me or my family and one way to do this is to have my own gun.
ReplyDeleteAllison M.
ReplyDeleteI believe that people should have the right to bear arms. The only thing I say is that people should do background checks on people trying to buy guns. If they have a dangerous background, they shouldn't be able to buy them. If they have no record of violence, they should be able to buy them.
That's just my opinion though.
Monica G. Online
ReplyDeleteI believe that prohibit the right of bear arms won't help in reducing the levels of violent deaths.These measures are not fully effective, its afficacy is partial, and can lead to a reduction in the number of deaths but not a total elimination of violent deaths. This is because the factors that lead to violence, but still incompletely understood in a varied and in any event no policy affects everyone. The politics of gun control can reduce homicides by accidental household reasons,accidental deaths, homicides committed by people who are not habitual criminals, in situations of anger, fear of violence, temporary loss control use of alcohol or other substances, etc. It may also reduce the violence of people who are not usually criminals, when for some reason a first degree murder: the process of of acquiring a weapon can give adequate time for reflection. Much lesser extent affect violent acts committed by repeat offenders. These criminals are relatively easy to acquire weapons, even when they are illegal.
Christopher K-Online
ReplyDeleteIf we were to remove the second amendment, I believe that this blog question would then be about acts of violence by human beings. A firearm is only a materialistic thing. It is not something that can shoot itself. The person, who is carrying the firearm and chooses to use it as an act of violence, is the danger to the community. There are many people who choose to misuse their rights to firearms, and there are some who uses them correctly. It is the right of choice that was violated in Arizona. Imagine if the gunman was to go on a rampage and he was the only one carrying a firearm, then it would have been multiple deaths. Unless police officers or whoever were also carrying them as well to protect the people of Arizona. The gunman had a choice, whether or not it was with a firearm or a house butter knife, if he wanted to commit violence, then it still would have happened.
Christopher K, response to Natavius F.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you. We can only blame the insanity of humanity for this incident. We have forgotten that guns and war is what gave this country our freedom. It is also the same thing that helped this country to be protected.
Monica G Online in response to Michele G.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, the existence of multiple types of weapons, all are designed to kill.Therefore, the term "defensive weapons" or "personal defense weapons" is an understament, as they are only defensive in so far as they are also offensive. All depends in each individula way to use it or abuse it.
joy online
ReplyDeleteAm a very peace loving person so ,i do not believe in right to own arms,but i feel the police should be the only organisation to sell arms so that whoever that wants to buy will be totally questioned and examined to avoid all these crazy people killing innocent people.Too many right kills too.
joy online
ReplyDeleteResponse to Deidre-i agree with you that gun or no gun,people will still harm others or themselves, but i do not suscribe to high school student bringing gun to school.how did he get the gun?if you happen to own a gun ,it should be kept in a place where its just you that can have access to it.To sum it all, its only God that can protect us from peoplelike Jared lee,Major Ahmed and his likes.
I believe that people should have the right to own a gun but there should be restriction and control over who can own a gun.Guns are dangerous and should be kept out of the hands of the wrong people.This would ensure that criminals are left out, but the people that are legally able can have no restriction on their rights.
ReplyDeleteIt was an unfortunate event, For sure. But it does not negate the fact that it was a human being that pulled the trigger. In all honesty, the privilege laid down by the second amendment is exactly that. A Privilege. Guns are not the killers, People kill people. No matter your stance on this issue, a Firearm is designed to fire a projectile at great distances. That is it's purpose. The CHOICE of direction in which the firearm is pointing when it is fired, is the ultimate decision.(WAR or PEACE) Being from Kennesaw GA, it is the law to own a firearm if you are a home owner for defensive purposes. When this law was originally instated by the city, Crime dropped in percentage dramatically. On a national scale, the purchasing and sales of firearms are restricted on a massive level and most people don't even take the time to realize this. They take other peoples word for it. When it comes to a firearm related incident, you will find that those weapons are typically not registered with the government and possessed illegally. Those who follow the rules are typically not the problem though; even with changing variables. Murder is a horrible thing and watch it on the news is jaw dropping. But are you honestly effected by it, or do you pick up your coffee mug and continue reading your paper?
ReplyDeleteSteven S Online: I believe that it is our constitutional right to bear arms. Maybe more strict background checks should be in check or some way to prevent or decrease the possession of illegal arms. Like making sure at gun shows that not just anyone can buy the weapons there. Alot on the stolen guns found in northern states get tracked back down to GA.
ReplyDeleteAnn K.
ReplyDeleteI believe that although all America's do have the right to bear arms, the right should be limited to those who are mentally qualified to hold a gun. these days its incredibly easy for a psychologically troubled person to get their hands on a Gun, but if we as a country become more strict on who is can get their hands on a handheld then the country would be a lot safer.
Steven S Online in response to Shannon H:
ReplyDeleteI also believe that even if their are, say, more strict gun laws, killers will always have another way to kill someone. As long as there are people their will be killings. So in order to feel safe we have the right to protect ourselves with guns, and if the misuse of the weapon happens the appropriate consequence will follow.
Kendaris H. Online
ReplyDeleteI agree that people should be allowed to bear arms. I think about the women who are raped and people who are murdered by sick people and realize that if they were armed they may still be alive. Although, I feel that one should be able to be armed I do believe the government should be more strict on the way a person is able to access a weapon. I think people should be evaluated psychologically to see their mental status before being able to carry a weapon. I also believe that the laws incriminating criminals who sell weapons illegally should be harsher. Longer jail sentences and higher bails as well as longer probation periods.
Kendaris H. Online in response to Brett;
ReplyDeleteI like the way you explain how a gun does not shoot by humans do. I also like the way you question on how people care. To be completely honest I am truly emotionally moved by the news but I tell myself that is life and continue my day. If you were emotionally affected by every murder that happens in the world, you'll end up killing yourself, emotionally or physically.
Although the second amendment was written in a time when our government was just beginning and there was not a police force or military or security guards for that matter, I still believe that people should have the right to do just about anything they want to do as long as it does not cause another person harm or hindrance. A similar incident could have occurred just as easily if Rep Giffords had been conducting her "meet the public" in a State that does not have a hold and conceal law such as Arizona. I am for a very extensive background check and proper procedures for a person to obtain a firearm, although it is really a mute point in this day and age where you can pretty much get whatever you want via the web.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Brett: Nicely put. And that last shot stung just a little. All of these things that we see in our face on a daily basis is nothing more than what was happening 100 years ago, but (as we've all heard a million times) now that the media is ever-present we see and hear of it.
ReplyDeleteJonah P. Online
ReplyDeleteI believe that everyone whom the law considers fit should be allowed to bear arms. These rights can be taken away from people who our court rules unworthy of having the right to bear arms.
No matter the circumstances if someone wants to cause bodily harm on another person they are going to find a way to do that. Even if they do not have the right to buy a gun or carry one there are always ways to obtain a firearm. All that is going to happen if the 2nd Amendment rights of citizens are revoked is that only criminals are going to have guns. The good citizens who use them for protection of thier family or even maybe to kill and provide for thier family are going to lose thier right and the criminals are not going to follow the laws anyway.
Tai W
ReplyDeleteI think that the if there was ever a time to repeal the second amendment; it would have been decades ago. At a time when the world was a different place. Now with everything being so easily accessible thru the Internet & the black market; there is no way to prevent anyone who wants a gun from having one! Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people! I agree with some of the previous comments in that to legally obtain a gun, there should be an extensive background check and maybe even a mental health analysis, but like i previoulsy stated: there's always the black market and the Internet! The argument always goes in circles! It's a no win
Jonah P. Online in response to Ann K
ReplyDeleteAnn I agree that people should have to be mentally evaluated before obtaining a permit for a gun but on the other hand anyone that wants a fire arm is going to be able to obtain one. It is so easy for criminals, psycho's, and even children to get thier hands on a gun. I really dont think that with or without the right to bears arms is really going to keep anyone from obtaining what they desire
Marie c.
ReplyDeletewhat happened in arizona was tragic and prayers are the people who lost their loved ones.I agree with natavius f who does not feel the second amendment law which gives citizens the right to bear arms should not be abolished.Guns do not kill poeple,people with guns kill people because their will always be some idiot doing something stupid so if someone committs a crime they should be punished the innocent shouldn't pay by taking away their right to bear arms
James O. online
ReplyDeleteWhile the events in Arizona were tragic and deplorable, they were carried out by a seriously
troubled lunatic.
IF GUNS WERE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WOULD HAVE GUNS!!!!
The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms, PERIOD.
It doesn't give you the right to go out and blast somebody who you don't agree with or ticks you off!
If a person sets their mind on committing an act of violence or evil, they will find a way to do it.
But changing the rights afforded to us in the Constitution is not the answer. If someone were to break into my house with evil intentions on his mind, and I wasn't armed, what would I do?
Try to reason with him? Ask him to pray with me?
Should I bring a knife to a gunfight?
No thank you.
NO THANK YOU!
Once I watched two commercial airliners fly into
those buildings ten years ago, my outlook on the world changed.
Earlier that year my first born, my little girl came into my life. I now have two children who I
would do anything in my power to protect, anything.
I pray for the souls of the innocent people who lost their lives this weekend. But i do not believe taking the right of decent, responsible
citizens to bear arms is the answer.
I know my rhetoric will come across to some as harsh. But i strongly support and believe in the Constitution and the rights it affords the citizens of this country.
Guns don't kill people...people kill people.
Just ask Charlton Heston.
I feel that even of we did not have the ability to bare arms some person would still find a way to harm the next. The bottom line is to always protect yoruself and be very careful of your surroundings you never know what might happen.
ReplyDeleteHello,
ReplyDeleteGuns do not kill people; people kill people. It is completely unreal that a person could shoot an innocent bystander without any conscience, however eliminating the right to bear arms would be absurd. If there is a will there is a way; If guns are eliminated something will immediately be put in its place. I believe that the laws on a person in illegal possession or involved in illegal possession of a firearm, should be intensified. Also, before issuing a gun permit a person should be thoroughly evaluated. A full mental evaluation, thorough routine drug tests, as well as approved logical reasons for needing a gun, and a criminal background check should all be administered in order to receive a gun permit. Society is turning into a slum and I believe most people feel safer with the power of a gun in his or her possession. This law is never going to be appealed. It would be too hard, law enforcement would never drop their guns if regular citizens had to. There would be too many exceptions and way too many dangerous illegal incidents involving guns, so leave the law alone and send the crazy people to the nut house.
Amanda H:
ReplyDeleteI used to be very pro gun bans, however within the debates and arguments I've had with others I can easily say that I am pro gun ownership.
These debates made me realize that the scenario. Law abiding citizens, should a gun ban be put in place, would follow the law. The people that do not follow the law would still have guns, and further endanger the people that were willing to follow the law and give up their right to bear arms. In the current situation, I believe if the gunman had encountered anyone who had a carry conceal license and a legally loaded weapon, he would not have killed as many people as he did. It makes me wish that Gifford could carry conceal herself, or that at least one law enforcement officer had attended this meeting. Encouraging carry conceal can definitely make an attacker hesitate before carrying out a malicious plan on the basis that anyone they attack may have the capability able to defend themselves.
Also, if a gun clerk even THINKS you would be ignorant with a weapon, they will absolutely refuse to allow you to purchase a weapon from them. I've seen it done many times. They know how important it is to protect others, and the rights of citizens as well- else they would be out of a job.
"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."
-George Washington
JamesO.online in response to KarimotA.,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said.
And so does the law that prohibits convicted felons from legally purchasing and registering a firearm.
I feel that what has happened in Arizona is both devastating and unfortunate. However, I strongly believe it is the right of the people of the U.S. to choose whether or not they would like to bare arms. Because in a situation one would need fire arms for protection and not have the ability to access these fire arms that will also be a devastating situation. I believe in this situation "the guns" aren't the issue. I'm not to sure what that guy had going on but he definitely has some issues that definitely could have been addressed prior to his outburst. I feel he handled whatever he was going through completely wrong, along with the other terrorist prior to him.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is more so the people than the guns. Guns don't power themselves.That's all I'm saying. Until people change whats in their hearts these things will happen ever so often. Because if you take away the guns, the next thing you'll here is people getting stabbed to death or poisoned. We as people need to change.
In Response to Karlie
- I 100% after typing my comment looking at yours pretty much confirms my belief. Nice idea, mental evaluations should be done probably wouldn't stop much but it indeed would help.
Marcus Key
ReplyDelete-everyone has the right to bear arms for prevention and protection of there lifes to also their country. I think it wouldnt be as bad if all the citizens picked up weapons like the border patrol and fought back against the cartel and voilent immegrants
Esther B online. That is my bigs worried all times about firearms readily accessible to people in this country. In under developed countries people do not have firearm accessible. They used man strength to attack each others instead of firearm. And the person can fight back if they are strong,but firearm can take life in a second.So i think it will be better if citizen are not allow to have firearm,but people in uniform which are police office, military etc.
ReplyDeleteDenice C. on line... I think everyone has the right to bear arms. However, if a person wants to hurt or distroy someone they will go to any extremes to do so, take for instance 9/11/2001. That day a lot of innocent lives were taken that day. Look different events that has happened since 9/11, the mail has been tampered with having powder on some of the letters, the courthouse killing in Atlanta, and the latest being in Arizonia. I feel if someone wants to go and a public place and distroy by take a human life they go to any extremes to do this. It does not necessarily have to be with a gun. Let's look a few years back when a man in Atlanta ran over the people as they were walking into McDonald's restuarant, and then at the Olympic's at Olympic part in Atlanta the homemade bomb. It is really sad that people have to worry about going in public places. It is really sad what this world has become to be. I wished there we someway or somehow we could take all the illegal voilance out of the world. I don't see that happen until the end of time happens and we are all standing before our heavenly father.
ReplyDeleteDenice C. online responding to Esther B....I have to disagree with you about people not bearing arms. If I recall last week a officer getting shot and the crimal stealing his car. If it was against the law to carry arms do you know how many officers would get shot or overpowered by the crimals. There are other ways for the wrong person to get guns. Yes, it worries me when I go to a public place such as the mall. However, this is where you put your faith and God and ask him to watch over you. Also, as I mentioned in my response, there are other ways for the crimal to do crimal attacks. Since Christmas, we have had different things throwed over the bridge on I-75 causing one car to wreck when someone threw a bike over the bridge.
ReplyDeleteLeslie Z. Online-I do believe that citizens should have a right to own their own gun. The Arizona shooting was very tragic, but it was a freak accident. Even if the government were to ban guns, the kind of people who are set out to hurt others, will always find another way to get what they want. If they are the kind of person that would take an innocent persons life, they are certainly not going to follow laws.
ReplyDeleteLeslie Z Online- In response to Karlie- I couldn't have said it better myself. Horrible people will always find ways around the system. If the right to bare arms was taken away, the trouble and havoc would out weigh the benefits. I don't think the Govt would ever actually go through with it, it would cause way to much question, anger, and consequences.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with the Corporal in the United States Marine Corp. Everyone who either has a gun or not will be armed in some shape, form or fashion. So, if you pull guns away what other weapon do you think will be an issue for the world? Guns are NOT the only problem.
ReplyDeleteDenice C. online... I agree 100% with James O. There is nothing I would not do to protect my children and grandchildren. I would probally take a bullet that was meant for one of them. This is where family and unity comes in affect. Taking away ones rights of owning a gun is not the answer. Yes, there is other ways for some mean and cruel person to distroy and distruct a families life. I think this is really sad.
ReplyDeleteMysti C. Online-I feel that everyone should still have the right to bear arms. A better way is needed to do more of a thorough background check before a person gets a gun. They also should make a limit on how many guns a person is allowed at one time. People should always have the opportunity to protect themselves and defend their property. Things like the Tucson shooting is a very bad decision that a person made and lives were lost, but we still need our rights to bear arms. I do send my prayers to the lives and the families of the Tucson shooting that was affected by the tragedy. Really in that type of situation, we need guns, so maybe someone could've took that shooter down.
ReplyDeleteMysti C. Online In response to Leslie Z. Online- I agree with that statement because if a person wants to hurt someone, they are with or without a gun. People with the ability to mass murder, will always find ways to kill, just like bombers. They want to get rid of guns, but I do not see them getting rid of things to create bombs. Of course certain things are just impossible to do and that is when a more intelligent solution is needed. The Tucson shooting was a freak accident, just like so many freak accidents that have occurred over the years and people always want to go overboard to find a solution. We as people need to become more ready in defending ourselves from people like the Tucson shooter at any given moment.
ReplyDeleteJulie A. Online
ReplyDeleteEvil is all around us and always will be. There will always be bad people who will commit violent crimes with or without guns. If the government outlaws guns then the good people of America would not be able to protect themselves. I think that, after this tragic event, we should be encouraged to buy more guns. Just think if someone there would have had a gun then Loughner probably would not have managed to kill as many people as he did. In addition, if the government did outlaw guns, the corrupted people would just find other ways to hurt or kill someone, and we would be left defenseless.
If the government outlaws guns because one crazed bad man killed someone, does that mean that when somebody gets stabbed to death that knifes will be outlawed too? I believe that we should definitely keep the constitutional amendment that gives us the right to bear arms. We can’t overreact just because some maniac decides to kill someone.
Julie A. Online in response to Mysti C. you are completly right Mysti. there should be more through background check on people. Also, that needs to be a limit of selling guns to mentally unstable people. If this Loughner guy did have something mentally wrong with him then he should not have been able to access a gun. I agree with you in saying that just because someone makes a bad decision it does not mean outlawing guns is the solution.
ReplyDeleteKarlie-Online
ReplyDeleteHello,
Guns do not kill people; people kill people. It is completely unreal that a person could shoot an innocent bystander without any conscience, however eliminating the right to bear arms would be absurd. If there is a will there is a way; If guns are eliminated something will immediately be put in its place. I believe that the laws on a person in illegal possession or involved in illegal possession of a firearm, should be intensified. Also, before issuing a gun permit a person should be thoroughly evaluated. A full mental evaluation, thorough routine drug tests, as well as approved logical reasons for needing a gun, and a criminal background check should all be administered in order to receive a gun permit. Society is turning into a slum and I believe most people feel safer with the power of a gun in his or her possession. This law is never going to be appealed. It would be too hard, law enforcement would never drop their guns if regular citizens had to. There would be too many exceptions and way too many dangerous illegal incidents involving guns, so leave the law alone and send the crazy people to the nut house.
Christian B. Online
ReplyDeleteThe shooting in Tucson was a horrible nightmare for America and my heart goes out to all the families that are going through the terrible pain of losing loved ones. I don’t believe that guns by themselves are dangerous, but the people behind them can be. If someone is out of their mind then they will do something completely irrational and sometimes others are caught in that person’s actions. It just goes to show you that guns are indeed misused, but I do believe in the fourth amendment for it gives us the right to protect ourselves from people who want to harm us and the people that we care about.
Christian B. Online in response to Rebekah T.-online
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what you are saying. People that go to buy guns should be examined to see if they have any major mental problems. I think that everybody should get a psychological examination before they by a gun and they should have their doctor verify that they are capable of wielding a firearm.
Karlie online in response to Julie,
ReplyDeleteI agree that a higher power in society should be granted the power to issue firearms, but certainly not the police. I believe that police hold enough power in society and just because he or she has a badge, does not make them fit to hand over guns. They allow people to get by with more than they should and sometimes they go too extreme against petty crimes. Granted they do protect us, we all know that policemen are powerful enough, they don't need the extra power of issuing handguns. I believe it should be left up to mentally fit government officials, it shouldn't be taken lightly. It is honestly beyond sad to not be able to trust very many, including government and government appointed security, but there has got to be a more managed, and secure way to hand out guns. Also, what if we did something more extensive to the trace of a gun? Instead of serial numbers, what about GPS systems on guns over a certain size? Sounds crazy, but maybe then, the use of a person with a gun can be followed more closely.
Jonathan Self, I think having the right to have guns is a tricky subject to debate. Guns absolutely is necessary for protection. People however do abuse this right. And for the people who abuse it should be delt with indefinitely. Keep fire arms.
ReplyDeleteVrixton P. Online:
ReplyDeleteI don't believe they will ever remove the Second Amendment. The Bill of Rights was written as a guarantee to a very scared population recently out of war that the government would be fore the people and of the people rather than being a force of oppression against them. As stated in the Declaration of Independence [which, even though it has no legal bearing, it is good for analyzing the sentiment of the times], it is the duty of the people to overthrow governments that have become tyrannical. Of course, things have changed since then, and our government is not yet the kind of tyrannical that demands violent overthrow. Even so, it is necessary that the people be given their right to bear arms, that they may defend themselves [from thieves and muggers now, as compared to 'savages' then] not only from a government that may become unbearable in the future, but from other people who may be able to end their lives before the police can be present.
In a time when people die in fires because the Fire Department comes by and sees no smoke, and people die of medical problems because of the incompetence of emergency workers, who is to say that the police are any more reliable?
However, I do believe that gun shows should alter their format a bit. The gun sellers should be registered with the government, and the gun sellers should require some sort of proof of sanity from the buyer. Normal gun sellers are required to do background checks, but they should also be required to ask for a mental evaluation. Not everyone has the maturity or discernment to use a gun. Power, after all, corrupts and what greater power is there than that of controlling life and death?
In addition, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns, which will make the problem or armed robbery even worse and even deadlier. As proof, we can turn to drugs. Marijuana is illegal, yet thousands, perhaps even millions, or people use it on a regular basis, and drugs fuel gang violence and also attract gangs to this area or that. Were drugs legal, many people would likely give up the habit because it no longer holds the allure of 'sticking it to the man' that it does now; it loses the mystique of fighting the establishment.
@Michele G.: Precisely. I feel like people have lost their sense of responsibility.
Rachel C.
ReplyDeleteBearing arms can be necessary...depending on individual circumstances, of course, but, isn't that the true issue at hand! What does every individual want? Why do they each want? How do they get?...I can only say we, as a society, have MUCKED UP from the beginning when it comes to guns. In an organized society, I can only wish that from the very beginning we had issued a weapon upon a "personal" firing of. What I mean is...Ok...issue weapon/gun, but...with finger print/age requirement, and as technology allows, that this fingerprint ONLY allows for the actual firing of the weapon, and only one weapon per person desiring to purchase. With this in hand, there would be no illegal selling/buying, there would be no firing randomly of weapons without knowing EXACTLY who used them (due to needing of single-fingerprint of said owner/purchaser, and there would be NO gun-related crimes/issues that cannot be traced/studied.
Glass half empty or full, what do you think?
I think that the second ammendment whichs allows people the right to bear arms is the right way to go. I think that people have the right to protect themselfs, after what happened in arizona I think that people would be crazy not to carry a weapon.I have to say that i dont think that its okay that everyone carrys a weapon because some people just shouldnt be aloud to, they just go crazy when they get or what they feel like is a little bit of power.
ReplyDeleteCynthia T. Online
ReplyDeleteAlthough the shooting in Arizona is tragic there are instances like this all over the world, even if firearms weren't readily available they would have found another way to commit these horrible acts.
I don't believe we should all be punished for the ignorance of few people that live lawless lives.
In response to liljon0426.
ReplyDeleteI have to say i absolutely agree with what you said. I think that gun are definitely nessacery but some people do abuse the laws. But what can u really really do about that.
Cynthia T. Online
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mysti C's post to a degree I agree with you but then on the other end of things I don't. The government is already too far in our personal lives I don't believe they should be any deeper than they already do simply we may bear arms. Not only that people are too easily becoming convicted felons for petty crimes and are unable to bear arms how is that right? If we are going to let them dig deeper into our lives so that we may be granted something we are promised by the costitution where will it end?
@Rachel C.:
ReplyDeleteI think it's a lovely idea. However one must also bear in mind that as technology progresses, so do the skills of hackers.
To have a gun which can be fired only by the person with that exact fingerprint would likely result in dishonest people getting older guns off the black market or taking apart the guns and removing the technology which locks them to one individual.
It's one of those unfortunate side-effects of the triumph of human will: a person will find a way to do what s/he seeks to do, be it good or bad, and despite consequences.
Vrixton P Online: blast, I posted that last comment "@ Rachel C.: I think it's a lovely idea" without attaching my name to it. I'm so accustomed to having an account lol.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Oyebola O:
ReplyDeleteYou said, "Those that dont have a gun and stay out of trouble are still living at peace because their trust is in God." What about those 9 people who were murdered in Arizona? They were living in peace and were not armed. Why, then, were they killed? Did they die because they didn't trust God enough? If one of them had been armed, they could have shot the shooter and maybe there would not have been 20 victims.
God gave us brains to think and use tools to help make our lives more peaceful and secure. It is up to use them.
For example, do you lock your car? Your house? Or do you just trust God to keep people out? Do you go to the doctor when you are ill or do you just trust God to keep you healthy and heal you from disease? Do you pick up total strangers off the side of the road and give them a ride because you trust God to protect you? Each time you take a proactive measure to protect yourself and your property, is it a sign that you don't trust God, that your faith is lacking? I don't understand your thinking.
Rachel C.
ReplyDeleteIn response to @, since I do not know any more info... MUCHO appreciation... I sense I may be responding back to a male/female who has knowledge on how to take apart/put together a fire-arm. The technology, I, personally would have in place would have this in consideration alreay (biometric tech.). In fact...if someone were to tamper with the weapon, it would "cease to fire" at all! Again, as you stated...where there is a will...right!
Jonathan R. Online
ReplyDeleteIn my view I am for still having the right to bear arms. However, there has got to be better restrictions on how a person can buy or acquire a gun. Other than that i can not really think of a way to get a ban on them. Cause no matter what people will always find a way to acquire a gun.
Jonathan R. Online
ReplyDeleteIn response to Rachel C. I love your assessment of how to issue a gun to a person. With technology getting more advanced i could definitely see that as a plausible solution. It would really make it more difficult for criminals and would solve so many issues. Great idea!
Hmmm....maybe we are trying to rationalize the irrational. The young man that shot and murdered 20 people in Tuscon was insane. His rationale for killing those people was way outside of the norm. Why didn't someone see the signs that this man was going to commit a violent act? Why didn't anyone foresee the Fort Hood masacre or Virginia Tech massacre? These horrific incidents were virtually unforeseeable. There are always going to be insane people. There has always been a struggle between good and evil. There always will be. Life is never going to have a guarantee of complete safety.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns. Do we want more government control? Are we becoming sheep in the U.S? I do not want more government intervention and regulation in my life. How can a person live with themselves if they are afraid to defend their family and property? It is not enough to rely on law enforcement agencies to keep us safe. What about self- esteem? What about living with yourself after being assaulted due to being defensless? It is unrealistic to expect law enforcement to be where we need them at all times. We must be able to protect ourselves if necessary.
Perhaps one of the most compelling examples against gun control can be taken from the Kennesaw, GA gun law. In the early 80's, a city ordinance was passed requiring every head of household to own a gun. The crime rate dropped despite a large increase in the population. It is important to realize that law abiding citizens are not comitting violent crimes.
KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.
In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.
The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."
marcus key
ReplyDelete-Sorry i wrote the wrong input for a different issue.. I again personaly believe that guns are very useful.. but there are some evil people in this world.. but i dont think we should get rid of weapons and the right to bear arms because of that. they will still have guns. like drugs, they are illegal but drugs are everywhere
Ok, what does the Second Amendment really mean?
ReplyDeleteDoes it means that all people should have the ability to possess whatever arms they wish?
The States-rights view is that the Second Amendment merely guarantees the states the rights to organize, militias, and citizens the right to join.( militias here means any armed force raised for the common defense; not just the national guard.) The individual-rights views is that the Secons Admendment means what it says: Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.
Obviously, there is a problem with criminals haviong access to guns, which is why so many people feel they, too need a gun for self-defense, but this is a vicious cycle.
The problem with guns is fairly straightforward; they make it easy to kill or injure a person.
In the case of murder in course of other crime3s, it is obvious that the presence of a gun makes a crime more potentially lethal. And in the case of of acquaintance murders, the presense of a gun makes it easier to kill, makes the killing more instanantaneous, more detached, makes the killer have to think not at all about what he is doing. In short, people are not always thinking rationally, and when there is a gun around, it is easier for an irrational person to do great damage.
To sum it all up, I feel that if the laws hadn't changed and guns weren't so easily accesible that crime would be down. But I can't say that the shooting in Arizona wouldn't hjave happened, because if a person meditates on something long enough, it will manifest in their minds, and action will take place be it good or bad.
The Second Amendment was put in the Constitution for a reason. It was so everyone could have the opportunity to protect themselves and their families. I strongly agree that we should be given this opportunity and not left defenseless. More so, I believe everyone, not including mentally disturbed or criminals, should have a fire arm. Criminals will get what they need and want, if its legal or not that's why they're called criminals. So if more noncriminals carried firearms I believe crime would actually go down. Perfect example is the gun law ordinance passed in Kennesaw Georgia in 1982. It requires everyone to own at least one hand gun with ammunition. Ever since 1982 the population has risen from 5000 to 35,000 but the crime rate has since declined.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Vrixton P:
ReplyDeleteI believe the laws we have now should be enforced. Law enforcement seems to be out of control when it comes to enforcing laws on the books. Drugs and illegal immigration are two areas where laws are not enforced. Illegal gun sales can be compared to the sale of street drugs. Pawn brokers often buy cheap unregistered guns at gun shows, etc. and then market them like illegal street drugs. Minors and convicts are never supposed to be able to purchase firearms but still obtain them through illegal sales.
I believe in the right to bear arms. The problem is not the accessability of firearms, but the people who choose to bear them and how they exercise their freedoms. There seems to be a lapse in enforcements of laws, and any sort of checks that find out who possesses firearms, and what their history or backround is.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Rachel C:
ReplyDeleteTechnology is probably the next step on our fight to keep arms within the proper citizens hands. The problem would have to be addressed very carefully though. Fingerprinting is simply not enough though. If a criminal or hacker wants to find a way around something, they generally do. Im not sure what the right solution really is.
Kristina L. online
ReplyDeleteIt may not have happened in the way that it happened, but I definately think that if someone is bent on causing harm to someone then they will go to whatever means necessary to get the job done. It was a terrible thing that happened, but taking guns away is not the answer. If you take away guns from law-abiding citizens, then the only ones that will have guns are the criminals. I saw a bumper sticker one day that made a lot of sense to me. It said "'If guns kill people then do pencils misspell words'" That made a lot of sense to me. It is not the guns, it's what is inside the hearts and minds of those that are using the gun or whatever weapon that they use. I don't really know the answer, but taking away our right to bear arms is not the answer.
Kristina L. online in response to James O.
ReplyDeleteJames I completely agree with you. Guns do not kill people. People kill people. I don't know what it will take for people to realize that there is something wrong with these people. Something has gone wrong or snapped in them. Taking guns would never be the answer.
In response to Kecia B. I agree guns do seem to be the weapon of choice because it makes it easy to kill. but thats speaking on the behalf of the criminal you have to think about the victim. It makes it easier for the victim to handle the encounter with a gun. So lets just assume guns are banned. Someone breaks into a womans house with a knife, and even though she has a knife he's intimidatingly big with his knife. Now do you think she's thinking "now since he doesn't have a gun i have a fair chance" or do you think she's thiking, "I sure wish I had my gun to make the next person think twice when they see what what i do to him." You could easily be that victim.
ReplyDeleteWe were given a right to bare arms over 200 years ago, and I think that right should remain. Yes, people do outrageous things with the freedom they are given, but why should my safety be put at risk because they cannot be responsible?
ReplyDeleteIf baring an arm became illegal, purchasing guns would turn into the new drug trade. People who want them them will get them whatever way they see fit. They will carry those guns with them whether it is illegal or not, and they will do whatever they please with those guns. No law is going to stop them.
Taking away our right to bare arms is taking away my right to protect myself. If I chose to follow the law, I put myself at risk because there is no way I can protect myself from a man with a gun unless I am on equal footing.
JamesO. online in response to: whomever,
ReplyDeleteThis debate seems to rear its ugly head just after there is a horrifying crime carried out by a twisted individual.
A knee jerk reaction always seems to be outrage and proclaiming, "well, if only..."
The weapons or instruments used in any crime where murder is commited are not the reason these crimes happened.
The descision to pull the trigger is made by the individual holding the weapon.
I took my kids to the zoo last week.
While there, we visited the reptile pavillion where all the worlds most venemous and deadly snakes and reptiles are on display.
As I was reading all the descritions and scary facts about the Black Mamba, Diamondback Rattlesnake, King Cobra, etc. to my kids I noticed kind of an indifferent, ho-hum reaction.
Until we came to, what the description plaque on the wall announced as "The Most Deadly Preadator on Earth"!!!!!!
This got their attention.
The plaque was right next to a large mirror.
Amidst all these deadly, scary things, we were reminded that humans are the deadliest preadator
this planet has ever seen and ever will see.
Humans.
Think about it.
Think about history. The crusades. are you kidding me?
More people have died on this planet in the name of religion than any other reason.
The human mind is a tricky thing. It will make a descision, carry out an act, and rationalize it with itself.
And then move on....
Take away guns?
Won't matter.
Won't work.
All you would accomplish is seriously pissing off millions of people who manage to navigate the stress of day to day life without putting a bullet through someones head.
Like me.
Rebecca Dasher. I believe that guns shouldnt be outlawed in our society. The people who kill other people have something mentally wrong with them. If guns were illegal, people would just find some other weapon to use. I think that the background check when buying a weapon should be way more extensive but this still wont stop the shootings because not all killers have a criminal background. Some just snap
ReplyDeleteDonna H. Online: I believe in the law of the land and therefore support the right to bear arms. On a personal note, I also have children in my house and therefore do not believe that is it safe to have guns in the house due to past experience.
ReplyDeleteWhen my 1st son was about 18 mos old, I was in the kitchen and heard a 'thump thump thump' coming down my stairs. It was the baby, dragging a rifle down the steps by it's barrel. It was at that moment, that I gathered all guns up and locked them in my trunk, then promptly gave them away.
I would be great to have stricter gun laws, before a gun can be issued, but then again true criminals don't observe gun laws anyway, so why bother.
Donna H in response to T. Moore: Agreed. Bad people are pretty inventive when it comes to harming others. Take Timothy McVey for example, he killed 168 people using only a rented truck, racing fuel and cattle feed. Outlawing guns will not solve the problem.
ReplyDeleteRebecca M online
ReplyDeleteIn response to the second amendment, I believe there is a place in our society for this right. I think it was intended for American to be able to protect ourselves (which is undoubtly needed at times). If only police officers were the ones to be able to bear arms and someone comes into your home and tries to harm your family, there is not a police officer around and you need protection. But there is a lot of bad scenarios that can happen! After working in the healthcare field for a while now, I have seen alot of mentally ailed patients that have come to a place where they want to inflict harm on themselves or others. if a gun gets into the hands of someone with a mental illness it can possibly go to the bad place. That is why I support the right of the psychologists and psychiatrist to be able to put names on the list that cannot purchase a gun. But when it comes down to it and you have someone who is wanting to get hold of a gun to inflict harm on themselves or others they are going to find a way to get it!
Rebecca M online:
ReplyDeleteIn response to Steve:
I had no idea that there was a law passed in Kennesaw regarding owning a firearm! At first it seems crazy but then it kinda makes sense! If I were a criminal and I knew there was a firearm in every home I would think twice before committing crime! Seems like they are were on to something!
I agree that guns should not be outlawed, they are of good use. Certain individuals should just be payed close attention to, such as ones with a thick criminal background or who have a psychological disorder. I also think guns should be put on a much more restricted sale though instead of just selling to whomever. Also agreed with Donna H and T. Moore criminals these days are more creative than using a gun.
ReplyDeleteJennifer H online:
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Rebekah T said about giving mental exams among other things before handing over guns to just anyone.
Brandon Cass- The 2nd amendment not intended to declare that everyone should own guns, it was intended to allow the colonist to protect themselves. However, I feel that our Constitution stands for the rights of the people, and they should have the right to own a gun if they want. Many own guns that should not. MAny people also have children, and drive who should not. If someone wants a gun and can not obtain one legally, there are always ways to get them. Look at all the felons who are found with guns. There are many ways to illegally obtain guns, without background checks, if someone wants them.
ReplyDeleteMelina G. ONLINE- While I believe both sides could be eaily debated. I agree with the right to bear arms. While the Tuscon shooting was terrible I believe that that guy was just out to kill. It did not matter to him if he use a gun, a knife, or his own hands. He was capable of murder. So I support the right to bear arms for the simple fact that we need to be protected from people like that who just want to hurt/kill others.
ReplyDeleteResponse to Brandon Cass-
I agree with you when you say that many people own guns that should not. It is like the point I made about that guy killing whether it was with a gun or not. People are going to aquire guns if that is really what they want, legally or illegally. So once again we need that protection in a case that we are faced with these people.
SamanthaL.Online
ReplyDeleteIn response to RebekahT.Online
I absolutely agree with you. My main concern with people owning guns is that they can walk into any store, just about, and purchase one. It's not a very hard process to get a permit.
SamanthaL.Online.
ReplyDeleteI believe we should have the right to bear arms. I think it should be more of a process in order to obtain weapons though. There should be background test, exams, and the federal government should be the ones distributing them. You shouldn't be able to walk into a pawn shop or purchase one off of Ebay. The employees of the stores the federal government sell the weapons from should be even more strictly examined and should have a long process before hiring. The postal office has a hiring process of almost a year, you shouldn't be able to obtain a firearm permit within a few months time.
Iesha B. -Online...In my opinion, I think that the only people who should be allowed to carry a weapon is the people who have probable cause to carry a weapon such as the people who are in areas where there is a high crime rate and the people who have a restraining order on people. I also think that before anyone starts to sell anyone a gun, they should give them a background check to make sure that the person isn't a killer.
ReplyDeleteJamesO. online in response to Samantha L.
ReplyDeleteWe have the right to bear arms but the federal government should distribute them?
Anyone who has purchased a firearm knows that you go through a background check.
If you are a convicted felon, sorry, no firearms.
I don't believe the federal government should be the end all be all descision maker on who can have a firearm and who can't.
Remember, a government that has the power to give you whatever you want,also has`the power to take away everything you have.
In Response to Natavius F.
ReplyDeleteI agree that if the laws were changed the violence with hand guns would not be so high. The accessibility of hand guns would not be to such advantage. I also feel that when the laws changed that people who wouldn't normally own a hand gun went out and purchased one just to say they had one.
I feel that when the laws changed they should have also made the laws a little more harsher for the offenders that already had charges against them for gun violence.
Jordan Lewis-Regardless if firearms were not readily accessible, there would still be people with guns. Nothing can stop someone from having something that can be brought. As long as people have money and the means to do something they will find a way to do it. Yes maybe if they were illegal or something people would have a harder time getting them and yes maybe it would have made someone give up trying to buy one, but if the means are there and the determination is there you can find one with time.Regardless though there are other ways to kill a person even without a gun.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Iesha B.
A background check would be good, but the fact is that anyone can get someone to buy it for them. How do most people get gun they really dont buy them most of the time. They are giving to them from some other source. Someone that has a good background could buy it for them, family,friends, or someone that they are threatening either way its still possible but it could make it a little harder to get a gun.
Julie S. Online
ReplyDeleteWe should have the right as American citizens to own a gun. It is our right to be able to use this gun to protect ourselves or our families, to hunt, or use it in some other recreational type of purpose. Unfortunately, there are those who use guns in the wrong way and that is what ruins it for everyone. I think there must be someway to have tighter security on campuses. Maybe this is an area that should be furter explored. There will always be ways that killers figure out how to kill besides using guns!
Julie s. online in response to SamanthaL. online
ReplyDeleteI agree totally with what you are saying. If it was a little harder to obtain a gun, a longer process for getting a gun, and a longer waiting period, it might help cut down on the wrong people getting their hands on guns. Of course theres a black market available but still, getting a gun shouldnt be so easy!
David N
ReplyDeleteI bealive that no matter if fire arms were accesible or not that the shooting would have still happened. some one who wants to do something this horrifying there is not much you can do too stop them . but if the goverment passed a law that sated every one should own and carry a fire arm it might not have happen. I mean if you were to walk in to a place that you new every single person there had some type of gun would you try too pull a gun out in a public place no cause your going to get shot. getting rid of guns want help the porblem with these mass muders not much we can do . but we all wish the these incedents would not happen .
I don't think that that the gov't is to blame because even other countries where people are not allowed to own guns,shooting is still going,bad people will always find ways to commit a crime.
ReplyDeleteMargaret N.
Loan.N.Online.
ReplyDeleteThe world would be so much peacful if every country have a strick law for using arms. Having a arms in a bad person is very dangerouse for people around.
But the arms that not can kill people, using only to protect someone from something is good. The arm that just can make a big noise to get help from people is good.
Only police should have the arms, so they can protect people.
Lillian T.Online
ReplyDeleteThe atrocious shooting in Tucson, Arizona is indeed tragic. We must remember though that even in the hands of trained law enforcement officers, innocent people can be killed. Broadly speaking, I think that the second amendment argument is often used by proponents for firearm ownership to shut off the discussion. I am fortunate that I have not been in a situation that requires protection from an assailant. I know I would wish then that I had a gun of my own. I think private citizens should be allowed to protect them selves, but there should be control about the caliber of weapon sold to individuals.
Lillian T. Online. Response to: oyebola o.online
ReplyDeleteOften times, those that don’t have guns, are the ones caught in the cross fire while going about their lives. I believe in God, so I put my trust in Him but what should atheist do?
What is your argument for police who kill innocent people? Well, may I propose legalizing and mandating marijuana for all? Then we can all be peaceful happy people.
Audrey D.- ONLINE:
ReplyDeleteI fully support the 2nd amendment. I believe it's the person and not the intangible object that creates the mess. Even if there were more restrictions on guns, you would be able to access the weapons by other means. Guns are easy to come by. You can purchase one cheaply at a pawn shop or carry one illegally. Some areas of Georgia require you to own a gun if you are a homeowner. For all of us living in society the law abiding way, tighter restrictions on getting a license to carry or conceal would be easier. History has shown that this is a sticky situation and you can't completely omit certain "rights".
Audrey D-ONLINE Response to Loan:
ReplyDeleteI disagree with you saying that only police officers should carry guns. There are some situations where cops aren't around or they don't respond to a call in time. If someone broke into your home harming yourself or a family member threatening your life, a gun would come in handy.
Guns aren't the only problem we have here. There's always the threat of other things ranging from a knife up to biological weapons.
Kevin G_Online response to Shannon:
ReplyDeleteExcellent post Shannon, but to expand on the laws I would like to see stiffer penalties for even minor offenses. Give criminals (especially juveniles) a reason to think twice.
Kevin G_Online
ReplyDeleteWhat happened in Arizona was a tragedy, but the answer is not to ban guns in America. The only people that would benefit are the individuals inclined to harm you for their own benefit. What needs to be addressed is the punishment that should be given to anyone who uses a firearm for the wrong reasons. To fix the problem we need to look at making the punishment much harsher.
Charlotte C online
ReplyDeleteI think if guns are ready accessible or not they will still be more death and injury. I ready do not know which way to go we are now in the last days were things are ready going crazy. I just leave it on the mighty God.
Rochelle G Online.
ReplyDeleteI believe we, as American citizens should have the right to bear arms. The guns are not the problem just certain people carrying them for unlawful purposes. Guns are used in sports and recreation not just killing each other. Perhaps government laws making it more difficult to purchase guns and more education would diminish the problem. I believe if guns were taken away there would be an even bigger problem. More guns sold on the black market.
Rochelle G Online in response to JamesO. Online.
ReplyDeleteI found your comments very interesting but it led me to ask myself if we, people are under the influence of something to do the wicked things that we do? Are people possessed by something that causes great grief and destruction to others? I believe that they are – spirits! There are only two, good and evil. What possesses you to do what you do?
Caleb A-Louis. Online
ReplyDeleteIn the past as in the example of the "wild west" gun were for personal protection and were typically used properly. Today guns are far more efficient and dangerous. the right to bear arms should honestly go to those who can be considered enough to wield them. So, some random drunk with a bad history of being violent would never be allowed to have possession of a gun. though a citizen with both a license and a potentially clean record can.
Amanda H. Online to Caleb A-Louis. Online:
ReplyDeleteI agree with this, and most gun store owners and clerks will not give weapons to anyone they feel may be irresponsible with a weapon- their jobs depend on it. If too many people are irresponsible with guns they know that that can put their livelihoods at risk, and this for others as well. That's why background checks, proof of licensing, and other verification is needed on top of a sound mind. Legal weapons dealers will not hesitate to refuse ammo or guns to anyone in their shop that they feel may abuse it. I've seen it done two times before in my short time overseeing- and they will refuse you on simple medical tests for any mental slightness as well.
Joshua L. Online
ReplyDeleteThis debate has many points on both sides but i do believe the bill of rights got it right. guns do have practical usage with hunting game and also for protection. Guns do harm due to holder, whether that be incompetence as with a minor just finding a gun or if the holder actually means to do harm. But guns are not the only weapon someone may use to do harm, someone can easily bring out a switch blade, so those who believe guns should be outlawed it will not solve the problem, people will just find another path to get to the problem. Although i do believe a psychological exam would be beneficial, it will not solve the problem either because people will just jump through the hoops without giving true answers.
In response to oyebola o.
I completely and utterly disagree. The government makes tons of money off of everything we trade including our time so you cannot base something becoming illegal off the basis of the government making money off of it. Police should be the only ones with guns? yeah because they have totally proven they are completely just hah. police brutality is rampant and you believe they should be the only ones with access to guns? You can have your peace in god while ill have my peace in my shotgun in my closet. we'll see who lives when someone breaks into our houses.
branom c. online in response to Natavius F. online
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with natavius. Every one who feels the need to protect themselves should be able to purches an posses a fire arm. In my opinoin it is not the fire arm that kills people its who is on the other end holding the weapon
I think that people should be able to purchase guns and carry them around. They should do a background check to ensure saftey. But people who crazy enough to shoot someone for no reason are going to kill someone no matter if they have a gun or not and they would have a gun even if its against the law. We as citizens should be able to have protection for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteKayla B. Online- THAT IS MY POST ABOVE. SORRY I FORGOT TO PUT MY NAME!
ReplyDeleteKayla B. online.
ReplyDeletein response to margaret N.
I couldnt agree with Margaret more. I think that whoever comitts the crime should be punished for the crime. Dont punish the sane people by taking their guns away.
Donna M.- Online
ReplyDeleteWhether we take away this right or not, there is still going to be a way to gain access to guns. For some they may have to take an illegal route, which again is another issue to address. We can't control when a person is going to snap. For some going crazy is just blink away. I think that a way at managing gun control needs to be sought after, not merely taking away the rights of everyone.
Donna M. online in response to Julie S
ReplyDeleteI agree. A weapon is a weapon no matter what can be used to cause harm. Guns are just easy to debate because there is an amendment right to bear arms.
Moiya H. Online
ReplyDeleteI believe very much in the right to bear arms if your arm a law abiding citizen with the proper permits and registration. We must be held accountable for our own actions. Guns don't kill or attempt to kill people, people do. And anyone who says different should think about if that gun was never purchased and stayed on the shelf in the store, it wouldn't have shot anyone. And besides no one is a killer or attempted killer until they pull that trigger. the thought my be there but the action you choose is your own.
Alisha C. Online
ReplyDeleteAmericans should have the right to bear arms. Period. There should just be stricter laws and more hoops to jump through to purchase a gun. It's not the gun that causes the problem, it's the stability of the person using it or just plain carelessness.
Denice C. online in response to Loan N. There is not enough police in the world for everyone to have their personal bodyguard to protect them from people with guns and other crimes. I have a friend who is in law enforcement. He has a saying, "You can put a police officer on every street corner, and a crook is like a mouse". "If he can get his nose through the crack, he will commit whatever crime he has sit out to do." Other citizens needs to be able to carry guns as well, so they can protect themselves where the police officers are unable too. When guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns.
ReplyDeleteDenice C. online in response to Joshua L. Yes, I agree there is police brutality out there, but it doesn't hold a light to the police bruatality from the 1960's and back. It is up to our law enforcement agencies to police their own. I am familar with a recent case where an officer was dismissed for over acting. I praise departments like this!
ReplyDeleteMoiya H. Online
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Jordan Lewis:
I agree with you that if the anti gun people get what they want and no one but law enforcement could have guns, people would find a way to but and sell guns. The price and risks goes up because no more background checks and it would be illegal. But there are plenty of people not able to have guns by law that do now. And if that person that gives up on going black market for an illegal gun, they'll just stab with a knife or smother with a pillow, and not to mention beat you with a baseball bat. And what can the law do about that???
Shane B. -Online
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the right to bear arms is a fundamental part of our basic liberties. Gun laws should not be at question here; in fact if anything should be questioned it should be the profiling of individuals who may or may not pose a threat to themselves or others. We've seen this happen over and over again where individuals send off early warning signals that they are extremely mentally distressed. (Columbine High School Massacre -1999, & Virginia Tech. Massacre -2007) In both massacres the shooters all displayed early signs that there was something wrong. With a little intervention the outcomes quite possibly could have changed.
To simply blame guns and demand that they be removed from legal owners does not solve the real issue. We should look out and help those who may have some deep personal issues, and help those in need. If someone is at a state where they're willing to attempt a massacre, regardless of whether or not guns are legal they will stop at nothing to either obtain one or resort to other possible alternatives, such as bomb manufacturing.
Shane B. -Online
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Kevin G.
In my opinion a harsher punishment will not prevent massacre like shootings caused by people who have completely overstepped the bounds of mental sanity. In fact, most massacres end in the shooter(s) turning their weapons on themselves because they expected to die anyways.
As I stated in my previous comment; we should focus on getting immediate help to those showing signs of mental distress. not necessarily isolate or demonize them, but monitor and reach out to them in an effort to help prevent further tragedies such as the Tucson, AZ shooting.
Shane B. -Online
ReplyDeleteIn Response to Lilian T.
I partly agree with you. We shouldn't remove guns from law abiding citizens; however, to control the caliber sold wouldn't make much sense. A bullet regardless of it being .22 or .50 has the potential to kill, and that's what the intention is. Gun owners need to be responsible for their weapons. This means locking both the main firearm, it's magazines/clips, and ammunition separate from one another or in some locked storage compartment to prevent ease of access to other individuals, whether it be family, or a burglar.
Luis Burrion-
ReplyDeleteGuns dont hurt people, its the idiotic people who cannot settle their problems or issues in other ways that hurt people.
Now a days guns can be easy to come by, either legally or illigally. Security should be the issue in the shooting in Arizona not the guns. If the president had been present at this event the security would have been tight. So with that beying said, is ones persons life worth more than others?
Professor...what do you think? Where do you think we went wrong?...Starting where?
ReplyDeleteInquiring Rachel C....would love your input for us ALL!
Courtney P. I believe that each U.S. citizen has a right to bear arms. Some civilians may take advantage of this by doing harm, but there will always be someone in this world like that. If civilians have an opertunity to help protect theirselfes and their loved ones by purchasing a gun then they should be aloud to do so. As for others who are against it, then they ccan disagree with it and just not bring the weapon into their household. As for the shooting that occured in Arizona and many other places; there will always be a tragic event occuring somewhere all the time in the world. It is not always a gun, people can use many different things as a harmful wespon. So, even if the U.S. decided to ban guns or make it harder to get I'm sure their will be a way for them to get around it.
ReplyDeleteCourtney P.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Shannon H. I like how you used other instiantces to back up what you believe. I agree with you on how if people want a gun to protect theirselves and there tangiables then they should have that right. Also how there are other ways to do harm besides using a gun, people are smart enough to come up with a way to use something as simple as a pen to hurt someone.
Lenie D. Online
ReplyDeleteI have always been a "non-violent" person as long as I can remember. I was taught to avoid violence at all costs as I was growing up and this is a concept that I passed down to my children. Saying this, I believe that guns do not kill people but that people kill people.
I do not necessarily believe that the accessibility of guns plays a factor in violence. I think if guns were abolished, people would find other ways to kill each other. If the jails in the US were like the jails in, let's say.....CHINA or some other foreign country, I don't think we would have half of the violent act that we have in the US today.
Lenie D. Online
ReplyDeleteIn response to Rochelle G
I agree with you on regarding education. I believe that education is the key to solving almost anything and I am sure if more people were forced to maybe take a class and watch the visual effects of what being shot is like, maybe they would think twice before using the gun.
Nyrva B online: In the state of Georgia any individual with a clean background is eligible to carry a concealed weapon in any dwelling or area as long as they have a permit. With this can come many pros and cons. This law is beneficial to any honest individual who is in attempt to protect themselves or their household. A small percentage of individuals are put in a position where they have to protect themselves from criminals who intrude their personal property with intent to harm that person. The other percentage are individuals who are habitual criminals who have yet been caught committing a crime. This would be considered the con. Yet, it is very important for every person within the United States to have rights to posses a weapon but only in attempt to protect themselves from crime being committed against that person. Though the law can not totally control who has the legal right to posses a weapon, at least the ones who are ineligible to posses a weapon are a target for law enforcement in order to reduce crime within their local vicinity .
ReplyDeleteNyrva B online, in response to James O: Your post really gave me something to ponder about. I agree, the weapon used to perform a crime is not the reason why the crime occurred. As long as humans exist, there will be crime with or without the accessibilty to guns.
ReplyDeleteTyler
ReplyDeleteI believe that anyone that has the right to own a gun and can easily access it will stay out of trouble for the most part. There is always that exception for the one person that proves me wrong, but if an individual has the right to own a gun without any law refusing them to do so, this will cause many problems, example A, thye incident in Tucson, Arizona.
Stephanie M. Online:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure how I feel about firearms being readily accessible. People should have the right to protect themselves, but anyone can use that excuse to buy a gun. If someone wants to use a gun to harm others they will find a way to get one whether it's leagal or not.
Stephanie M. Online in response to Rochelle G Online:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if I agree with your first sentence, but I agree with the rest of your comment. I also don't see a solution to the World's problem with guns. Sadly, I think everyone has a time and a way to go.
Brittany T. Online
ReplyDeleteIn response to both Courtney and Shannon
The tragedy in Tucson Az., I do agree, would have been attempted with or without a gun. The legality of guns in my opinion is not an issue. It was a tactic the perpetrator used to make a statement. While the masses of Americans view politics as just politics it is in fact a way for the majority to vote on which tangibles are more important and need to be protected by the government. Was this shooter wrong for using a gun to protect his tangibles? If we take the 2nd Amendment written in the late 1700’s and the fact a majority find it okay to shoot to protect tangibles; maybe he wasn’t. When the 2nd Amendment was written, tangibles were family, livestock, crops, farming land and slaves, are we protecting those same things or things comparable?
Marie S
ReplyDelete..."While owning firearms in this country is a right preserved by Second Amendment to the United States Constitution,something must be done to make it more difficult for firearms to fall into the wrong hands"...
Alicia online on response to Deidre C online. Girl I completely agree with what you said. I do not think it would be wise to only give guns to our ploice and military because your right there are corrupt police officers and military personel. I do think that it is wise to make it harder for "just anyone" to obtain an gun but I don't think it should be made impossible or illegal. I am very saddened by the shooting in AZ and my heart goes out to everyone affected, and the other historical shootings such as columbine, Virginia tech and Kent Statevery tragic as well and I feel like maybe more closely monitoring who is allowed a gun may make it a little less dangerous but who are we kidding? This is America and I dont care where you are there will always be crime and hatred and stupid people with guns doing unthinkable. things to innocent people
ReplyDeleteBlake Huffman
ReplyDeleteThis topic will always be an arguement because you have 2 types of people, people who follow the laws and people who dont. It would not be fair to take away guns to people like me who use them for everyday needs. I use my gun for hunting, so that i do not have to buy meat. Some like to have guns in their house for protection. Then you have people that use them for the wrong reason, but you can not tell me that guns kill more than DUIs do. People are always going to guns for the wromg reason but it would not be fair to take them away from the people that use them for their own needs. This is will always be an arguement that we will never get around.
There should never be gun control; the right thing to say is control the individual that does harm with guns. I have seen weapons used for the wrong reasons and it was never the guns fault, only those who pulled the trigger of the weapon. The second Amendment that our forefathers left for us, gave all Americans the right to bear arms. I realize that there have been many that have used that right to do harm, and those who have used that right and abused that right should be the only one to have that right removed from them and not anyone else.
ReplyDeleteLula D.
In refrence to Lula D.
ReplyDeletePeople who commit felonies and do crimes do get those rights taken away. Convicted felon's dont have the right to posses a fire arm.
Amorim R., Sonia
ReplyDeleteWhille is is a terrable tragedy, I believe there should be minimal gun control and this should apply specially for convicted felony criminals. Guns do not kill. Those who pull the triger do, as the deranged individual did in Arizona. Including in the gun control law, should be a basic training course for the use and handling of all firearms to prevent the users from inflicting injury to themselves or other innocent individuals.
SP-Even thought the event that took place was very horrific I believe the right to bear arms should stay. In addition “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Therefore, we should focus more on the people gaining access to these deadly weapons.
ReplyDeleteLDjobo online
ReplyDeleteI believe that people should have the right to bear arms. The only thing I say is that people should do background checks on people trying to buy guns. If they have a dangerous background, they shouldn't be able to buy them. If they have no record of violence, they should be able to buy them.
That's just my opinion though.
LDjobo
The guns are not the culprit of the crimes, they are the tool. If guns werent used to cause violence, then it would be a knife or a bomb
ReplyDelete