Obviously many people know these tings would happen since when the Bill of Rights were created. It is true that Rights of the individual should exist. However, if you allow people to own guns, its simply allowing people to form a small clan of militia. "In audio from police radio channels an officer can be heard saying the suspect was down and that there were "multiple gunshot wounds", and calling for multiple ambulances to go the scene.
The suspect supposedly used a "long gun" " (BBC Oregon college shootings). The state laws in the Oregon states that people are not allowed own assault rifles (I may be wrong correct if in the comments if it is). But there are states where heavy firearms are legal (again, plz correct me if im wrong). With the people carrying assault rifles, and shot guns the crime rate would go skyrocketing. Which may be happening already.
Do Ameericans really purely believe in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Do we really believe that anybody and everybody should have the right to own weapons? Is that really being followed? If so, then why does the majority of Americans accept the idea of background checks before purchasing a weapon. That statement means that anybody and everybody (even those who fail the background check) should be allowed to purchase weapons and bear arms.
The process of purchasing a weapon requires background checks. This is put in place as a way to prevent the wrong people, such as criminals, to bear arms because they use them for the purposes of committing further crimes. This is a form of regulation, which already breaks the amendment, as it infringes "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Despite this, these background checks seem to be widely accepted but yet people believe that any further regulation will then become an infringement on the amendment.
Regulation of gun ownership is good thing, but not enough to prevent people from purchasing weapons and causing premeditated weapon attacks killing numbers of innocent people. And it happens over and over again. The amendment needs to clarify the boundaries of gun ownership, because do we really want more of people like Christopher Harper-Mercer to own weapons and use them like he did?
I believe that the amendment should be removed. I voice this opinion because it gives the right to firearms, and without that right, no one could have one. Think about it; if you have a firearm because you're worried about 'Robbers' with firearms, and firearms were outlawed, then the robber wouldn't have one. So do you need one? No!
Its time for revision, and change. Everyone who is progressive and superior to the "less evolved" knows that change and reform is exactly what we need. The 2nd amendment was adopted in 1791. Times have changed and so must our laws. I also find anything that I don't agree with to be offensive and should be outlawed. Therefore I believe that the 1st Amendment is also a problem. My room filled with participation trophies is a constant reminder of how great I am and how stupid the bigots are who believe in competition. The government should run every facet of our lives because we are not capable of doing so ourselves. Guns are for nut jobs, capitalism is for crooks, white people are racists, the religious are intolerant, and men are pigs. Equality for all! Individual freedom for none!
FACT: Shooting happen.
Opinion: It's the 2nd amendment's fault.
FACT: In countries with Gun Control laws worse than our own, shooting still happen.
Opinion: I don't care about any country but America.
FACT: Gun ownership is a Constitutional right.
Opinion: Maybe rights are overrated and we should all be equal like the USSR.
FACT: In gun controlling countries like Britain and Australia, all categories of crime went after the banning of guns, as well as the number of armed robbery deaths.
Opinion: Uhh... Who cares?
FACT: When they outlawed Alcohol, the Mafia just rose up and started making it again.
Opinion: Yeah, but: Well, yeah.
FACT: The framers of the Bill of Rights INTENTIONAL added this amendment to make sure "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Opinion: Well, we aren't 150% sure what kind of "arms" they were referencing.
FACT: An unarmed populace makes it easier for robbers to raid houses and certainly aides an aspiring Tyrant.
Opinion: I think all facts should become opinions, and vice versa.
Need I say more???
Criminals will always be able to get guns. I have seen first hand examples of this on the internet. By limiting the ability of good people to acquire guns, fewer will be able to fire back at a shooter. The shooter will then be able to do as he wishes.
I am obviously for Gun Rights as I type this post. My opinion on Gun Rights is that people should be allowed to have guns, but shouldn't over excess their rights. Does this mean we ban all guns, or try adding more regulation checks? We shouldn't ban all guns, but instead require background checks. Sadly, putting to much regulation to gun rights actually causes more crime, than not having restraints. Says so right here under the "Reverse Psychology Effect": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/does-gun-control-encourage-crime_b_7917684.html
Back to the topic, I will admit it is sad but stuff like this happens many times in the history of the U.S. It happens, and society moves on because that's how life is. People can argue to change the ruling, but do you think criminals are going to follow rules? No, they are not and that's why they are called "criminals".
The real issue we should address would be to add less media coverage upon a story. I say this because the more media present within a tragic event, the more criminals will do crime because of wanting to have their "15 Minutes of Fame". The media always shows the criminal, and not the victims which adds the factor of "Agents of Socialization" that influences the individual to do the crime. Haven't you noticed more shootings recently? Most likely because the media putting too much emphasis on a story, instead of just mentioning once or twice.
The problem is the idiots taking advantage of the second ammendment (like that Oregon shooter).People feel a great deal amount safer with a gun even though they might never use it in public. It is impossible for the government to protect every single family and person. Ultimately is the adults' responsibility to defend themselves against attackers. For example in April 20, 1999, there was a Columbine High School massacre and on April 17, 2007, there was also a Virginia Techs shooting that could have been ended and lives saved if there was an armed citizen shooting the attackers