Amazon.com Widgets

Should the United States Senate have voted down the recent gun control proposal?

  • Unconstitutional, 2nd Amendment

    Not to mention, this is a violation of the constitutional rights
    What the Second Amendment also does is recognize the right, power, and duty of able-bodied persons (originally males, but now females also) to organize into militias and defend the state. It effectively recognizes that all citizens have military and police powers, and the "able-bodied" ones -- the militia -- also have military and police duties, whether exercised in an organized manner or individually in a crisis. "Able-bodied" is a term of art established by English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, and is the only qualification besides citizenship on what constitutes the "militia"

    There are a million people on the watch list. Are we supposed to ban them all?

  • Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." So while the 2nd Amendment acknowledges the need for an organized (or "well regulated") militia, it blatantly states that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the PEOPLE, not the militias. And what do you mean first step? Are you implying that what you really want is a blanket gun ban? Are you acknowledging that this is simply the first step in a plan to disarm the people? Also, who is a terrorist? Though we haven't reached that point, the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox) is blatantly left-winged. Will one day just having dissenting thought against the mainstream be an act of terrorism? The four proposed gun bills (particularly Senate Amendment 4720) left a lot of room for an Orwellian form of corruption. Good on them.

  • Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." So while the 2nd Amendment acknowledges the need for an organized (or "well regulated") militia, it blatantly states that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the PEOPLE, not the militias. And what do you mean first step? Are you implying that what you really want is a blanket gun ban? Are you acknowledging that this is simply the first step in a plan to disarm the people? Also, who is a terrorist? Though we haven't reached that point, the mainstream media (with the exception of Fox) is blatantly left-winged. Will one day just having dissenting thought against the mainstream be an act of terrorism? The four proposed gun bills (particularly Senate Amendment 4720) left a lot of room for an Orwellian form of corruption. Good on them.

  • Originalist point of view

    The founders had muskets. They could only fire one bullet at a time and had to be reloaded (took a while). I would rather everyone have the ability to have a hunting rifle that cannot be hidden under clothes than a handgun or automatic rifle. That is one compromise, I guess.

  • It was the right call

    In the aftermath of a tragedy we must be careful not to let emotion dictate our policy. Instead of looking at sensationalised massacres, we must look at the national homicide rate. Roughly 15,000 murders involving any murder method take place every year in the United States. In 2015, 38,000 people were killed in car crashes, yet I haven't heard any congressman or media shill pushing for "car control". Detractors would of course argue that cars serve a vital purpose, but arguably so do guns. They serve as a check against the state or federal government abusing its power, and in the event that our country is invaded by a foreign opponent a well-armed resistance will maximise chances of the country being successfully defended. This deterrent force worked during WW2, and as fully automatic weapons are available to the common man it arguably still exists against even the most modern ground force today. That is to say nothing of the recreational value of guns and the deterrent against crime that they pose. Plus, if we are not going to raise the prospect of banning Muslim immigrants (Omar Mateen was a Muslim and pledged allegiance to ISIL even after "diffused" years living as a homosexual), then we sure as heck shouldn't bring up guns. Blame both causes or neither. The "OMG ban all guns" people have no problem with the mass murder of 1 million babies in this country annually, so they have no moral high ground from which to condemn the gun rights crowd anyway.

  • Common sense has to prevail

    Why on earth would you not want to correct the one loophole that puts all of us at risk. It is ludicrous that someone who has been interviewed by the FBI Twice can go get an AR-15 and mow down people. In what universe is that okay. The sad thing is, it is easily fixable by Congress. Unfortunately Congress members are only looking out for themselves. It's ridiculous.

  • Is every citizen guaranteed the right to bare missile launchers and their own personal nuclear weapons?

    No. The right to bare arms should be dependent on the lethality of the weapons in question. There is already a precedent wherein civilians have surrendered their right to bare arms due to some previous crime or condition. We don't let inmates in prison have guns. Should crazies get them?

  • Do your job!

    What needs to be done is that our existing laws need to be enforced and certain procedures need to be amended. That's what Obama has been trying to accomplish, but Congress fails every time. What will it take to get logical measures enacted to address this issue? You would think that a bloodbath with a death toll that surpasses Virginia Tech would motivate politicians, but no!

  • The United States Senate erred in voting down the gun control proposal

    The United States Senate should not have voted down the recent gun control proposal. The bill merely would have barred terrorists from obtaining weapons. The second amendment covers well-regulated militias, and does not mean individuals have the right to own guns. A good first step is to keep weaponry out of the hands of terrorists.

  • No, the Senate should not have voted down the recent gun control proposals.

    The Senate should not have voted down the recent gun control proposals. The United States is faced with some of the highest levels of gun violence in the developed World. Common sense gun control legislation is needed to curb the epidemic of gun violence in America. Individuals that are suspected terrorists should not be allowed to purchase firearms. Also, gun shows should not have loopholes that allow people to bypass background checks before purchasing weapons.

  • No, I do not think that the United States should have voted down the recent gun control proposal.

    No, I do not think that the United States should have voted down the recent gun control proposal because it is too easy to acquire a firearm in the United States. In the United States, people on terror watch lists and no-fly lists can buy guns without undergoing thorough background checks. The high number of mass shootings in America shows that it is too easy to get a gun.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.