The right to keep and bear arms was so important to the framers of this nation that they put it second only to free speech. What needs to be done is make it easier to intervene when necessary to get help to those who need it. Every time there is a mass shooting its some deranged idiot that afterward everyone agrees wasn't right to begin with and at some point all the signals were ignored. Timothy McVeigh didn't use an assault rifle; he made a bomb out of commonly available materials. Bombs are illegal but that did not stop a determined individual. Banning black rifles wont stop anyone either. I train with and carry fire arms in my profession for protection, and in defense of the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic; I have sworn an oath to do so. I keep firearms in my home for the same reason. I don't want to teach my children about the days before our rights were taken. If one right is taken what's to stop another. Next thing you know we can't speak our minds, we are guilty until proven innocent, the government can search our private property, and jail us without probable cause. Be afraid when the government takes away that which was deemed a "right" by those who created the greatest nation on earth as a the greatest experiment ever conceived: a nation by the people and for the people.
After the massacre at Port Arthur in Australia, the gun laws were changed for a good reason.
I know the premise is that it is not the gun that kills people, it is the person.
However, a gun in the hands of a deranged person or someone who is a criminal may have been avoided if that person was not allowed to have a gun in their possession.
I know I am not an American, but my heart goes out every time I see senseless violence perpertrated by people using firearms.
We even have laws regarding knives and other dangerous weapons.
Please rethink your stance about the 2nd Amendment
I have never seen a president or democrat politicians who are more determined then ever to remove the basic civil rights of the second amendment. We have idiots (on the democratic side) who are now calling large magazines “assault magazines” or “high performance magazines”, they don’t even know what they are talking about. If they choose to debate about something, please do the homework on what you are debating about. The Democratic Party is not on the side of any gun owner. Obama after all signed the UN gun control treaty, even though it would not be enforced, the act is a signal to wake up, and see what this party is all about. Democrats sight murder rates by gun are lead by the USA, true the USA does lead homicide by gun in the world. There’s a problem with this liberal logic (101) while trying it to equate gun equals evil debate. The USA doesn't even come close; it’s not even in the TOP TEN in HOMICIDE rates in the world. Evil will always find a way to kill gun or not. Liberals would love for everybody to believe guns somehow cause a person to become murderous, so lets ban them, “the government will protect you”. Well-educated people on facts know better, people will find other means to committee these crimes.
If the Second Amendment falls, the remainder of the foundations of this Republic will fall with it. The 2nd amendment is the protector of all other amendments and liberties. If the 2nd amendment falls, all others are in serious danger. The Second Amendment, followed by the First Amendment, are the pillars of this great Nation. Whether you are a gun supporter or not, be sure to educate yourself on the real agenda behind the attack on the 2nd amendment before it is too late and we take another rash action which will be one more step towards the loss of our most fundamental and core constitutional rights. These rights are timeless as they are about liberty, freedom, and the protection from government. They are not meant to be the fad of a generation or administration and the loss of 1 (especially the 2nd amendment) is a major step towards losing others. The horrible loss of life will not and cannot be avoided by putting laws in place that are not followed by the lawless and mentally deranged. These laws and bands only prevent law-abiding people from potentially stopping these criminals and (if ever necessary) they will eliminate the citizenry from being able to stand up to the tyranny of a government (a concern our forefathers had and if not our generation, but potentially future generations may need to be concerned about). Bottom-line, laws and bans only affect people who follow the laws; they do not stop people intent on breaking the law.
Guns do kill people, but they also save lives. Criminals are not going to stop getting guns because laws were passed, if they want a gun, they're gonna find a way to get one. All these gun laws are doing is taking away law abiding citizens' self-defense. We are sitting ducks if they take away our ability to own a gun legally, just waiting to be picked off by the nearest sicko, or not being able to stop some mad man from committing mass murder in a public mall somewhere. Enough with the ignorance. Guns save lives when in the right hands.
If you give up your second amendment right your a fool!!!
Its all part of Obama's plan. He doesn't want guns in this country. They'll start by placing bans on weapons or tell you you can have them as long as you register all you weapons. Then they will pass another law saying you no longer have the right to own any weapons and if you do not relinquish your weapons then you will go to jail. Once the population is dis armed then the people are easier to control and have little or no means to defend their selves against the big government when it starts taking more of your constitutional rights away. If we lose our 2nd amendment rights were doomed because its just matter of time and we will have no freedom or liberties left..... COMMUNISM!!!!
When the bill of rights was conceived by our founding fathers, the tyrannical rule and control by the former government was fresh on their minds and they just witnessed first-hand that the only way for freedom pursuing people to escape tyranny was for the people to rise up against it using the same arms that would be used against them. It was not lost upon the authors that this uninfringed right by the people to bear arms is what defeats a tyrannical government and prevents a government from becoming tyrannical. The second amendment is not about hunting or shooting burglars in the middle of the night, the second amendment is about preserving the freedom of the people and making sure that the people can be allowed to protect themselves from any threat whether it be foreign or domestic born.
Our forefathers set up a multisegmented goverment designed so that one branch does not become all powerful. This system of checks and balances is usually defined as the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. The 2nd ammendment also gives the citizens the right to bear arms so that there is actually a fourth check against a tyranical government. Our fore fathers had the most modern weapons available at the time. They wanted us to have the same. That is why they said "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." God, I really wish we lived in times when we didn't need such weapons; however, I am exposed to nut ball kids shooting up people because it reminds them of the video games they play. I am exposed to a government that whittles away at my religious rights, right to bear arms, right to freedom of speech, and protections against illegal search and siezures. I am tired of this. There are millions of upstanding Americans that own guns and that do not go out and kill people. One nutjob pops up and Democrats want to take more rights from us. Don't be suprised in the future when Americans start resisting an over intrusive government.
It makes me so mad when I hear all this talk about outlawing guns. This issue is no different than Drugs. Drugs are illegal, but that don't mean that you can't find and purchase them, if you choose to do so. If you outlaw guns, it will be no different. It may then be illegal to own or posses a firearm, but that doesn't mean that if someone wants to find one, in order to carry out an act like this, that they won't be able to, because they will be able to find and purchase that firearm, just like people find and purchase drugs right now. It is awful that this tragedy happened, and my heart and prayers go out to everyone affected, but lets place the blame where it lies, Within the heart of the one who pulled that trigger. A gun cannot shoot someone by itself, it takes a human being to pull that trigger, so how is it that blame can be placed on an inanimate object, instead of the person who willed it to fire. I totally agree that firearms in the wrong hands create horrors such as this, but even still, I do not agree with removing firearms all together. Firearms are how we protect ourselves against the Evil in these people, take that away, and what happens to the innocent, how do we protect ourselves then? If you really want to restrict firearms, and try to keep them from ending up in the wrong hands, then make the laws of purchasing such firearms more stringent, but don't take away our second Amendment Right to protect our families, and ourselves...Just my opinion!!!!
When the day came that a young child could play a video game where killing people at random was the object of the game, that is when the problem began. When parents began to allow their children to watch violence on TV without any concern for the affect it would have on them, that is when the problem began. A gun in itself is metal, plastic, and organic materials. Just like a knife, stick, arrow, etc...When we begin to portray these items, like guns, as something to be played with, the problem began. When I was young, I grew up around guns. I was taught from a young age not to play or be irresponsible with guns. I knew how to shoot and handle a gun safely. I knew that they were for hunting and, God forbid, self defense. I never, nor do I know, feel they are something to play with. We need to teach our children to be respectful and to respect life. What we now allow as "entertainment" for our society is appalling. We have become a society of people with seared consciences where random violence on TV is considered entertainment. Then we wonder why people result to killing each other in the way they do. Guns are not the problem. Gun laws do not work...teaching our children to be good people and the value of life is the answer.
The framers of our constitution did not anticipate the current rampant use of guns to commit murders. Yes, if someone wanted to kill another person and did not have a gun, they could stab or strangle another person, but they could not commit the mass murders we are seeing today. Guns do kill people.
Gun ownership is not an inherent human right, despite the Constitutional wording. They got it wrong on this one, although the position made sense back in musket times. Today we see the danger of easy access to weapons of misery. Guns today are weapons of mass destruction, not protection or hunting. So we need stricter laws to keep up with these 'advances' in weaponry.
Guns are banned in the UK, and there are stricter laws on possession in other countries. The majority of people who defend their right to bear arms are the same paranoid people who insist that there is a new world order or that FEMA are setting up concentration camps with 500,000 plastic coffins. It's natural to be skeptical of your government, but I can't fathom why the people who own guns see it as some kind of pastime, toy or are mentally unstable conspiracy theorists. This is not post-Independence US. We do not need guns anymore, and they cause more harm than they do help.
The second Amendment was made to allow people to have single shot musket rifles. Americans who are not felons, are still allowed to own a single shot musket rifle. To end this debate lets show the photos of 20 dead children and see what people think then. If we are to have this debate, we must know the truth and the whole truth. What does 20 dead kids look like? Please show us so we can vote!
The 2nd Amendment has only been interpreted as the "right to bear arms" since World War I. Previously it was interpreted in the context that it was actually written: the right to bear arms in regards to a well trained militia. It's funny how 2nd Amendment "protectors" don't even know what it is, or the history of how it came to be interpreted in its modern sense.
No one's taking your right away to have a gun. The restrictions being imposed are for the sake of regulating and keeping military weapons out of the hands of the people. Sure, criminals will be criminals and a sadistic SOB will find a way to cause chaos and uproar, there is no arguing that, but to do absolutely nothing is a bigger disgrace.
Gun lobbyists see it as a way to keep intact their right to protect themselves, but really ask yourselves, do I really need this semi-automatic to protect my home? Perhaps if you were running an "illegal" business from home, then yes I suppose I could understand your need to bulk up your personal artillery. The average citizen though has no real reason to need explosive pieces of machinery.
Hunting rifles and handguns are one thing, but when we have military style weapons/ and such damaging weapons so easily accessible, there's a big problem. But criminals will be criminals right? It's like disengaging the alarm to a bank safe for a bankrobber. He's a bankrobber anyways right, he's going to rob the bank either way.
Yes, guns can be dangerous, but guns can also be a safety measure for those who need it. They can bring a sense of safety to those in perilous situations. They are a source of sport for those who like to become proficient in their use. There are truly a variety of well intended purposes for bearing arms, and I don't believe that enough people in the nation will ever oppose this for the right to be done away with.
District of Columbia v. Heller and cases cited therein. No pending legislation. No history of pending legislation. No currently pending litigation on the issue. No pending investigations of issue. No future plans currently announced to address the issue. The NRA is currently elected to no public office and has no standing to address the issue in the public media in the manner it has been so doing. The current tenor of NRA public comments is closer to sedition. Please notice Mr. LaPierre's comments appear to have been "stifled" -- at least temporarily.
Do you really think that 3/4 of the State legislatures would pass the ratification bill? Not to mention the bill would have to make if from Capitol Hill first! Name the 38 states that would pass the bill? No southern or western state (ex maybe California) would pass the bill.
No, the second amendment is not in jeopardy. This review of current law is the same process our government has taken throughout our history. For example, the first amendment grants the right of free speech. Along with every right comes responsibility and a test of reasonableness that the courts define. In this case, the first amendment is as strong as ever, but the courts have defined what "speech" actually is. In this case yelling "fire" in a theater or saying anything that entices violence is not considered "speech" and is not protected under law. We are responsible to use this right appropriately and reasonably.
Our review of the second amendment is the same. We should better define what our right to "keep and bear arms" actually is. What is responsible and what is reasonable. What is an "arm"? Is it a hand gun, a musket, a semi-auto machine gun, a grenade launcher, a bomb or a nuclear warhead? Our founding fathers intelligently did not define this for us. For, they could not know what an "arm" might be in the future. This is for us to define as a nation and for our courts to enforce. The second amendment will always be there. We need to have an open debate in this country on what an "arm" is so that we can enforce the law.