Senate rejects wider gun background checks: Was this the right decision?

  • It may be

    I think it was the right idea. The 2nd amendment of the United States states that the right to bear arms and maintaining a civilian militia is absolute. With that being said it's an invasion of privacy to suspect purchasers of firearms to prove that they are not criminals. We already have laws and police in place to search suspected criminals.

  • Yes, it was the right decision

    I believe that the Senate made the right decision on this bill. The government has been regulating too many things lately, so I think it is about time that they back off of our rights for a while. The 2nd amendment is in the constitution, whether the government likes it or not.

  • Yes, it was the correct decision to reject wider gun background checks.

    Many states currently have background checks and waiting periods in-place for the purchase of pistols and shoulder weapons. Anything more would be too restrictive. To inflict these new laws on millions of law abiding citizens is too much. Why are weapons owners the subject of all this hostility? One person can change public sentiment.

  • Stronger background checks are necessary.

    Not to mention that more extensive background checks are the one thing that a majority of Americans seem to actually agree on regarding the gun control debate. I fail to see what possible argument there can be against background checks being necessary for deadly weaponry. This is just more political pandering.

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