Speak Outs
Speak Out
Do local and state gun restrictions violate the Second Amendment?

The right to bear arms and a city’s ability to regulate guns are being debated in the chambers of the nation’s highest court.

 

In March 2008, both parties in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller presented their initial arguments before the Supreme Court. The case, which explores the issue of whether local gun restrictions violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, has generated great interest all over the country, as cities like New York and Philadelphia, as well as entire states, have previously drafted laws that limit gun ownership in the hopes of reducing crime rates.

 

The ruling forces the question: do local and state governments have the authority to adopt their own gun control laws or are those restrictions infringing the Constitution? Justices are expected to make their decision by June of 2008.

 

What the Second Amendment says and the questions it raises

 

At the heart of the debate concerning gun laws is the 27-word-long Second Amendment which states:

 

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.”

 

Nowhere is the right to bear arms explained further, and throughout the history of the country, the right of the individual to have guns has been implied, allowing for state and local governments to adopt gun restrictions.

 

Since it was written in 1787, two views of the amendment have emerged. The narrow interpretation suggests that the amendment protects only the rights of militias - groups of private individuals unaffiliated with the government. With this view, the right of individual citizens to bear arms is implied, not explicit, because militias are formed by individual citizens. This interpretation allows for governments to pass gun restrictions, such as the banning of certain types of assault weapons, as long as the general populace has access to other types of guns.

 

A broader interpretation of the amendment suggests that it applies explicitly to the individual, meaning that every individual, whether or not they are part of a militia, has the unequivocal right to bear arms. This view would declare most gun restrictions imposed by the governments as unconstitutional.    

 

The difference in the two views is subtle but important. Yet the debate has only produced three Supreme Court cases where the Second Amendment was forced to be defined. In those three cases, the issue hinged more on the definition and function of a militia instead of the right of the individual’s right to bear arms.

 

Courts’ interpretation

 

District of Columbia v. Heller raises the question of whether or not individuals have the explicit right to own guns, and if they do, whether local gun control laws infringe on those rights. At the heart of the issue is a 31-year-old restriction on one’s ability to carry handguns, the District of Columbia Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, and whether or not this ban, and regulations like it, violates the Second Amendment.

 

The ban, which restricts individuals from carrying a handgun without a license and requires rifles and shotguns to be equipped with trigger locks, was enacted in a time when the city was experiencing a dramatic increase in violent crime, and the city government reasoned that it was necessary to ban most handguns in order to protect its citizens. Since the passage of the ban in the nation’s capitol, other cities like New York City have passed similar legislation aimed at curbing gun related violence.

 

Flash forward to 2006: when several D.C. residents joined together to challenge the ban, citing that they have a constitutional right to carry handguns and that the law violated their protected rights. The challengers of the law sued the city Washington, D.C. in federal court, and after several trials, the case made its way to the Supreme Court.

 

The Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments in March of 2008, with the Justices weighing in their opinions on the case. The crux of the debate is the issue of whether a gun restriction is a reasonable and justifiable power of local governments in order to protect the lives of citizens or if it goes too far and infringes on the individual’s right to bear arms.

 

Chief Supreme Court Justice John Roberts asked the question, “What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?”

 

Walter Dellinger, representing the District of Columbia answered Justice Roberts’ question by saying “What is reasonable about a total ban on possession is that it's a ban only on the possession of one kind of weapon, of handguns, that's considered especially dangerous.”

 

Justice Stephen Breyer asked if it is "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?"

 

Alan Gura, who is representing the individuals challenging the gun restrictions, argues that the ban was not passed without any review, and the ban has not produced any clear results in reducing crime. He said before the court that the ban is “unreasonable and it fails any standard of review.”

 

The Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling by June 2008, and its decision will decide whether local gun laws are constitutional, reaffirming their authority to use gun restrictions as anti-crime measures or if they are unconstitutional, essentially nullifying gun restrictions passed by local governments around the country. In short, the case could have dramatic effects on the right to bear arms is interpreted where you live.

 

What do you think?

 

After reading the Second Amendment, do you think local and state governments have the authority to place limits on gun ownership? Does the Second Amendment protect an individual’s right to bear arms unconditionally or should safety concerns justify gun control measures? Join the discussion and let us know what you think!

Join the Discussion
 
 
 
limited to 2000 characters including spaces  



Thank you for commenting.
Your comment is awaiting approval.
Click here to view all Speak Outs
Comments
10/21/2014
Ohio
Dillon
West Jefferson High
when i see the second amendment and people try to say it is ONLY for a militia, i point this line out "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" that litterally implies the people, it didn't say " the right of the "militia" to keep and bear Arms" it says people, meaning any person in the US.

10/16/2014
Desert Hot Springs, Ca
Jason
DHSAC
It is the individuals responsibility to provide protection for himself and those he loves, not our government's. People must be disciplined and mature to create a safe environment where guns can flow unrestricted.

10/7/2014
Georgia
kamren
school
If guns were to be banned what would we do if somebody breaks into your house? you can not always depend on the police to get there in time and sometimes a man has to take the law into his own hands to protect what he loves

10/6/2014
Washington
Iesha
High school
Really they should be banned... Many innocent people die every year maybe even day because the right to bear arms.

9/23/2014
New York
Daric Eggleston
ICCHS
I only have one thing to say, I am 17 and I will carry whatever I want whenever I want. No government has the right to restrict that. And any restrictions placed are a breech of the constitution. I strongly believe we need to start up the militia and overthrow this corrupt government we have now.

8/8/2014
florida
adam
high school
The Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government and not the states. Slowly the Supreme Court through judicial activism has incorporated almost all of the Bill of Rights to the states. This process has been a massive power grab by the federal government. If a state wants to ban guns it should be able to.

6/25/2014
oregon
Mike
high school
how can the citizens protect themselves against armys and gangs if the us government only allows the army and gangs to have machine guns..

5/27/2014
Cedar City/Utah
Ryan
Durfee/Cedar Middle
It would seem that given the fact that our country no longer depends on volunteer militias, as we did at the start of the Revolutionary War--we now have our National Guards in those roles--that the 2nd Amendment should have far less significance and that SCOTUS has very highhandedly changed the Constitution by redefining the right to bear arms as far more than what the Founders intended. Does owning a gun keep you safer when everyone else owns them as well? I would argue, strongly, absolutely not.

5/2/2014
NC
Matt
CCMS
Guns should be kept, they are meant as tools for survival and defense of the people. The police aren't going to instantly show up if you're getting robbed, a gun would keep the attacker down until the police arrived.

4/29/2014
tacoma
brandon
abhuyiuf
no guns

4/22/2014
Charlotte, NC
Jared
Rocky River High School
KEEP OUR GUNS

4/21/2014
california
sergio
malabar
Our 2nd amendment rights our goint to disappear

4/10/2014
charlotte
Mac
quail hollow
guns dont kill people, people kill people. we need to think protection and how we have to protect ourselves. it is also good for the economy by selling firearms the government gets taxes

4/4/2014
New York
Nicholas
Oyster Bay High school
Not only does this regulate the people having guns apparently but this also regulates the police. I'd rather have a cop protecting me at a distance so only one person gets hurt. But in hand to hand combat it can become a different outcome

3/29/2014
Fort Worth
Rose
tcjc
I have a problem.Why does the gov. regulate a person's right to hunt and it affect endangered species. As far as I know the gov. knows the amount of animals within an approximate range. So we shouldn't have a problem with species being endangered. isn't this right?

3/25/2014
Nevada,Missouri
Lukas
Mrs. Gilmore/Nevada Middle School
No one has the right to take away the 2nd amendment

3/22/2014
New York
Ryan
Ms shmikledorf/KY high
With all these judges throwing out voter approved legislation on gay marriage, how can states have the right to restrict gun ownership but yet not have any right to regulate marriage. I never saw the right to get married anywhere in the constitution.

3/20/2014
dousman
Dylan
KM Middle school
EXACTLY haley is totaly right if criminals want to kill somone their going to find a way to kill them it dosent matter how they justwill

2/1/2014
greensburg pa.
Haley
Miss.Becker Altoona area jhs
No one has the rights to take our right to bear arms. If someone broke in our home isn't it up to us to defend our family? Yes it is. The 2nd Amendment isn't there to harm us, no it's there to protect us. Even if you banished guns, 1st people will smuggle them. 2nd people will find new ways to kill people.

1/12/2014
Oxford ct
Jeffrey
Oxford
The intent of our fore-fathers and ratifiers of the Constitution and 2nd amendment was to prevent any possible tyranny by our government. A government that we gave specific and limited powers to. If we allow the government to have a certain type of weapon then the private citizen should have the same right to that weapon to have equal power to stop the government if it becomes tyrannical. If the gov prevents the access in any way then the 2nd amendment is being violated, and they will have free will to become tyrannical.

12/17/2013
hanover
matthew hannigan
dr mcdonald
i find that we shouldent have restrictions because the it dosnt say that the goverment has the right to restrict them

12/6/2013
Madison Heights/Michigan
Caleb
Mrs.Meghan/FCMA
I am extremely interested in the second amendment and I love the thought legal weapon should be allowed because the world is becoming dangerous day by day.

9/19/2013
PA
Haley
Miss.Becker Altoona area jhs
No one has the rights to take our right to bear arms. If someone broke in our home isn't it up to us to defend our family? Yes it is. The 2nd Amendment isn't there to harm us, no it's there to protect us. Even if you banished guns, 1st people will smuggle them. 2nd people will find new ways to kill people.

9/17/2013
greensburg pa.
John Dunlap
Hemphield towenship
no Neither the courts, states ,or federal goverment has the right or the authority to place any limites on gun ownership.Yes the 2nd Amendement does Unconditionally, Garentee, the right of all compentent, law abiding citizens , to keep and to bare arms in deffence of ones on life , and the life of others as well as property, as well as in the deffence of ones owen state and the the united states.And for this reason the arms should be in line with that mordern army's to equal and have the deffend against a forgen invasion or inserection not for hunting or target practic you won't want to face a machine gun with a flintlock muzzel loader take it from an old infintry soldier.i have heard it said that people actually think that the corts ,state ,federal Gov. and court's will protect them .they can not and do not protect any one ,they only instill fear and the false elusion that they protect,nither do the false impression that peace officers protect you They do not,and any one of them that is onest will tell you as much they wioul tell you to get a gun learn to use it and proyect yourself they would tell you don't whate for them and don't even worrie about 911 until after you have handeled the problem. their is just not enough of them to go around AND THEIR NEVER WILL BE! the only safty concern is that the untrained public before buying a gun should take safty and self defence classes first NO need for Control measures! Just rember the armed compentent,law abiding citizen is the lawful protection every citizen, Because we our right their when bad things happen and your best chance for survival ma be that citizen comming to your aid or that well armed neighbor mabey the only thing that stands between you and a horrific death at the hands of a criminal. thank's to one and all for your patients, PS we do not live in a democracy we live in a Republic thank God we are not governed by 50% + 1 .In a Republic no one or nothing can conflict with the indidual rights

8/20/2013
cedar rapids iowa
thomas
wilson jr high
no no no if you take the guns from honest people they cant defend themselves or their family. already the crimanals have their guns they will not give them up and laws have failed simply the criminals dont walk around with their guns displayed so we dont know until it is to late they were hiding one at home or stealing one. facts are this world has grow so big the black market will always be unstopable the only way to be sure your family is secure is to own a gun and learn to safely carry it and use it.

8/16/2013
Vermont
Bill
Lake Region High School
If there were no gun laws and everyone could carry guns freely, don't you think someone else carrying a gun could have shot the nut-job doing all the shooting in Newtown or any of the other tragic shootings that have happened over the past few years? How about the idea that gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of honest people who have the right to protect themselves? Criminals don't care if they illegally possess the guns they use to commit crimes. As far as gun laws making guns harder to get, that's a load of BS too. All the laws do is make it illegal to possess cetain types of guns which in turn makes the prices of those guns go up, but criminals who want those guns will just commit more crimes to get the money to buy these "more dangerous" guns. When criminals know that honest people can't protect themselves it makes us all easier targets. Don't even get me started on the lack of a need for militias and protection from our government. Here's a little history lesson for you, did you know that one of the first things Hitler did after taking control of Germany was establish laws requiring citizens to turn in their guns? Kinda put those folks in a vulnerable position wouldn't you say? I'm ot saying that our government resembles Hitler's reign in Nazi Germany, however, I am saying that government is a necessary evil that requires checks and balances, and one of the ways things balance out is for the people to be able to protect themselves should a catastrophic event cause our government to significantly change. If the legislators are worried about crime, taking guns away from good people is not the way to solve the problems. There are many root causes that contribute to higher crime rates, and crime will exist with or without guns. Criminals will always find new and different ways to threaten the wellbeing of honest citizens. If the government really wants to address crime rates, social reform is needed, and perhaps an "eye for an eye" approach to crime.

5/13/2013
New York, NY
Aldo
Jaqueline Kennedy Onassis High School
The 2nd Amendment was created by our founding fathers in 1791, only four years after the Constitution was written. The amendment was meant to allow United States citizens the opportunity to change the government. This is touched on by the part that says, “A well regulated Militia, Being necessary to the security of a free state…” (Doc 1) The newly formed Union was probably still scared that their freedom might be tested again. They had lived for years under a monarch and they felt that there was a chance their future generations freedom would be tested by a similar ruler. Therefore, they created an amendment that would ensure the people of the United States freedom and liberty. Also the United States at this point is still a very wild land. In the early 1800s there was still loads of wild animals around and people needed guns for protection. More recently there aren’t many wild animals around; hence everyone doesn’t need guns. Because of these two reasons the 2nd Amendment has become rather outdated and it is not as reliable as it used to be. In 2011 there were 12,664 murders in the whole United States; 8,538 of these were committed using a firearm. (Doc 2) If it was harder for a person to acquire a gun the death rate will drop. Although it is still possible to be killed by other means, guns are the easiest and fastest way to kill a person. Stabbing, Cutting, and beating people to death takes more strength and effort and there is a greater chance the victim will survive. If there were no restrictions on guns, people would be able to purchase and use all kinds of guns and other weapons. Gun violence would greatly increase because more people could access assault weapons and other dangerous weapons that have the potential to kill people faster. In the Newtown shooting 26 people were murdered by one man in less than half an hour. This shows that if everyone had access to assault weapons thousands of people could die in an hour.

4/17/2013
Huntington Beach CA
Scott Jenkins
Edison High School
The 2nd Amendment states that the right "Shall not be infringed." A state can not nullify that, and i don't think that they should be able to make Clauses to that by saying you can but not unless you do this. That can be take feather till only a select few can keep a gun. What should happen is you could take a test about every 1 or 2 years making sure that you are mentally stable and fit to own a gun.

4/4/2013
Iowa
Carolyn
North Union
I believe that the right to have firearms should not be messed with! Even if you tried to limit guns in order to stop criminals do you really think they would obey? I seggust Obama leave his dumb nose out if this and invest in mental health and actually put our tax dollars to something good!!!

3/24/2013
Ledyard Connecticut
Lisa D
Ledyard High School
The 2nd Amendment states …the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This means that every individual living in the United States has right to own firearms. The Supreme Court acknowledges this but also accepts laws passed by state and local officials. State or local officials have the right to pass limited restrictions but have no right to go above the constitutions and ban firearms.

3/11/2013
Chattanooga Tennessee
Connor
Baylor
I believe that anyone who has no criminal background should be allowed to own and carry a concealed weapon! As long as they have gone through saftey courses and it is clear to them what the limitations to using this weapon for are!

3/11/2013
Chattanooga Tennessee
Connor
Baylor
I believe that anyone who has no criminal background should be allowed to own and carry a concealed weapon! As long as they have gone through saftey courses and it is clear to them what the limitations to using this weapon for are!

2/28/2013
Bullhead City Arizona
Shiann
Fox Creek Jr. High
I think people should agree with this! People who do not have a criminal record should be able to carry a concealed weapon.

2/25/2013
texas
G'Markus
Mrs.duke/AtlantaHighSchool
I think citizens should take classes and get and background check before the get legal to own a gun

2/20/2013
tucson az
john poloski
citizen
defending yourself, is a god given right, not just in your home but where ever you are. state and federal government are not to violate this right, but they do violate it, thats a big problem,and the supreme needs to react to this problem.

2/17/2013
tucson az
vincent marquette
citizen
gun restriction anywhere are are a violation of our rights in this country.,it is a cancer seeking to kill our 2nd amendment

2/16/2013
moores hill indiana
jim brown
roberts/lawrenceburg
they are infringing upon the second amendment,we the people have a right to be as equal as our military,less grenades etc.

2/9/2013
Ooltewah, Tn
Jake
Ooltewah High School
It completely violates our constitutional rights. And yet people in this country are so stupid and lazy they will continue to let the government control us just the way they did before we started a war and broke away to become Americans. Now the only difference is that we have no unclaimed land to run to and call our own after we kill all the natives there.

2/6/2013
West Monroe Louisiana
Kayli
Perkins West Monroe High School
I think that it does violate our second amendment. This is my opinion because they have always been around, yes they are becoming way more advanced but even back then they were advanced for there time period. Then people weren't as likely to break in and murder but now a days it's very common. What if your a divorced mom with little kids you want to fill safe and be sure to have more than enough ammo. Now a days ppl go and shoot up schools then say they did it because they were depressed and claim mental illness that's not an excuse they new enough of what they were doing. I think it's happening even more now because people are making such a big deal about it and they want to be ignorant and have out rights changed. There are other people in this world who strictly just collect guns and they shouldn't have to go through all sorts of crap to have a gun when it's there purely because they collect it. There is rules on guns now and not everyone listens to them so what makes you think adding more rules will make them listen anymore. I just think the schools might need a little more security. High schools are almost as big as college campuses these days and some people come and go as they please and can walk in in any door if they are a student so it's not hard to get weapons in the school. If you want to start making places safer start with the amount of security you have then people will feel safer and won't feel as though they need clips that hold 100 bullets.

1/20/2013
New York
Salvatore
Tilden High School
When the 2nd amendment was written the types of weapons used were much much different then what we have today!!! The wording was meant for that time and place in history!!! Many today can and will use their own intreptation to include assult type weapons with 100 clips, or even have a machine gun in their home to protect themselves!!! I believe in todays world the states should have the right to enact laws limiting the type of weapons citizens can possess to protect themself. Assult weapons belong in the hands of law enforcement personnel,and the military!! We need more attention dealing with mental health, and background checks, with very strick records of violations. The truth is that anyone who is sick enough and has the money can still find a way to get a gun and kill!!!! We have hundreds of laws on the books and that hasn't stop a sick and violent animal from killing!!! Putting more restrictions on the type of weapon a common citizen can keep to protect themself can help, if everyone else is doing their jobs in the medical field, background checks,and keeping strick records!!! This in and of itself will reduce needless killings,but will not stop it completely!!!! No one should ever be able to cross over into another state to purchase a gun under any circumstances!!! There has to be very servere punishment for anyone who violates the law with heavy fines, jail time, and losing their license to sell guns!!! Some may look at this as being to severe to enforce, but to do less and slap them with a fine only is to weak a deterant to protect the community,especially innocent defensive helpless children !!! Seems we are a nation that puts money and the NRA, before saving lives. I believe that everyone has a right to keep and bear arms, however, the state also has the right to protect it's people by restricting certain types of weapons that are meant to kill hundreds of people within minutes!!! You can have a weapon to hunt, target shooting, gun with seven clips

1/18/2013
syracuse, ny
kevin
phd phillps
you mistaken in saying ; nowhere does it say an individual to have guns has been implied. The Right Of PEOPLE to Keep and Bear Arms it is not any plainer then that...

1/17/2013
Texas
Richard
none
The Constution didn't give up are rights, it just affirms them, and the second amendment just clarifies them, so any gun law is a infrigement, like saying you cant be a christian, but a baptist is ok. It is a Right, not givin to me from the Government, but from God!!! or your creator....

1/16/2013
Indiana
Tony
None
Protecting a right sometimes costs lives. If you want to change this right, propose an amendment to repeal the second amendment. Otherwise the government is breaking the law by making any law to infringe on that right.

1/15/2013
Spokane Washington
Unknown
No one
You must also think about what is good for everyone. lives lost or protecting a right?

1/15/2013
esperance ny
william declue
st. joseh
these new new york laws are violating my second amendment !! what next take away pistols and then hunting rifles! i guess criminals can't kill people with 7 rounds! our politicians are idiots!!!!!!

12/14/2012
california
peggy
none
since the 2nd amendment allows citizens arms the restriction of this right cannot be other than a violation of the 2nd amendment. period. it is vital for the un/usa to remove all arms from the populace because it is otherwise too difficult to manage the final takeover. shootings, such as the newtown tragedy, are carried out by the govt to cause the citizens to demand that guns be banned. they create the problem - the people demand a solution - they implement what they have been planning to implement all along. do not be fooled. the govt is killing citizens to get its way with gun ban.

10/16/2012
Ct
Ben M
Lhs
I believe local and state gun restrictions do violate the 2nd amendment, because the second amendment gives the right to people to bear arms for the security of free state. If a citizen in a state feels unsafe in their environment they have a right to own a gun for safety reasoning. If a state government takes that away from the citizen, their safety becomes a hassard for self protection and more crimes would be committed.

10/16/2012
Ledyard/CT
Chris G.
Mr. Galante/Ledyard High School
Gun restrictions don’t violate the 2nd amendment, they allow guns to be possessed and carried by people, but they make it safer for society. The types of gun restrictions that are being put on are things like trigger locks, and banning certain kinds of assault rifles. These restrictions are taking place in areas that have an abundance of violent crime, and they can do well to stop this crime, as well as save lives. People are still allowed to carry firearms, but it has to be the type allowed in their area, and often have a license for it. The restrictions do nothing but ensure that people are being kept safe in their own neighborhoods, and not violating the 2nd amendment stating that, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

5/2/2012
Sunbury, PA
Zach Johnston
Shikellamy High School
I read the most recent comment, and I willl guess many people would agree. However, gun laws also make it harder for criminals to get guns. And drugs can be produced, grown, and distributed regardless. If gun-producing facilities had a security system installed, criminals couldn't get their hands on weapons. Now, you may ask, "What happens when they make them?" Building a gun isn't some easy task, so the majority of people who know how to fire a gun, or any weapon, most likely do not know how to manufacture one as well. And if we make it harder to obtain the materials neccessary to make the weapons, they, again, can't hold them. Gun laws aren't violating the Second Amendment and harming us, they're SAVING us. And, notice that the 2nd amendment says, "A well regulated Militia,..." My interpretation was that it means only a Militia member is allowed to "Bear Arms", so that would really be some leeway. I respect the fact people are willing to stand up for something they consider an injustice, but here, I see not one problem.

12/10/2009

Ken
Litchfield High, Litchfield, CT
Gun restrictions only take guns away from law abiding citizens. The thought that outlawing guns will prevent gun related crimes is preposterous. Criminals will still get guns. Take drugs for example. Drugs are illegal and yet criminals still get their hands on them. If guns are illegal, you are only taking them away from the citizens who would use those weapons to defend themselves. Criminals will still get their hands on guns. Gun restrictions make it easier for criminals to commit crimes and harder for victims to defend themselves. Gun restrictions not only violate our Second Amendment right, but also decrease someones chance at defending him or herself when a criminal pulls a gun. Banning guns won't bring peace. If anything it will bring more death and crime.

12/9/2009

jloon
montera, oakland CA
I think that no one should be allowed to carry guns because if no one has any guns than the world will be peaceful and no one will get shot.

10/1/2009

Will E.
Greencastle-Antrim HS, Greencastle PA
According to the 2nd Amendment 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. The local or state government has no right to change that, and that is a good thing. If guns become illegal a person who is willing to commit a crime while using a gun would also be willing to commit the crime of having a gun. Guns would now be like drugs are now, and even though they are illegal it is still possible to get them if a person really wanted to get a gun to commit a crime. So, the person without a gun, because they were following the local and state law, would now have no way to protect themselves when the criminal comes to rob or murder them. I think crimes would get worse if this were to happen because the criminals would have nothing to fear besides going to jail.

10/1/2009

Will E.
Greencastle-Antrim HS, Greencastle PA
According to the 2nd Amendment 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. The local or state government has no right to change that, and that is a good thing. If guns become illegal a person who is willing to commit a crime while using a gun would also be willing to commit the crime of having a gun. Guns would now be like drugs are now, and even though they are illegal it is still possible to get them if a person really wanted to get a gun to commit a crime. So, the person without a gun, because they were following the local and state law, would now have no way to protect themselves when the criminal comes to rob or murder them. I think crimes would get worse if this were to happen because the criminals would have nothing to fear besides going to jail.

5/28/2009

Katy
Trinity High School, Washington, Pa
I believe that if people are abusing their right to have guns then there should be a restriction on guns. I think that as long as you have a license, you should have a right to own a gun, and if you don't have a license you shouldn't have the right to own a gun.

5/26/2009

Jackie
Trinity High School, Washington Pa
If someone has a hunting license and keeps their guns locked up, then they have the right to own a gun but if someone is abusing their privileges then yes, they should be restricted.

5/1/2009

Ashley
Trinity, Pennsylvania
I do not think it violates the Second Amendment as long as people do not abuse their rights of gun ownership. Someone with a hunting license or keeping a gun locked in a cabinet for security reasons should be allowed to have a gun. However, if someone such as Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people and wounded numerous others, does violate the Second Amendment.

4/24/2009

Avril
Overborrk high school, philadelphia/PA
I think that the Second Amendment does protect your right to bear arms. I don't feel that local and state governments have the right to place limits on gun ownership beacuse this amendment was put here for a reason. If someone owns a gun it doesn't mean that they have or are going to committ a crime. I think that there should be some concerns about the safety issues, but if you have a license to own a gun, then why should there be any concerns if it's in the Second Amendment to have the right to bear arms? I don't think that this should be allowed because being able to own a gun is a right that we have.

3/23/2009

Rebekah
GAHS, Greencastle, PA
I think the Constitution was made for a reason. I do not think the government should be able to make too many restrictions on who owns a gun but knowing who owns a gun is a good law to have. I believe the 2nd Amendment does protect a person’s right to bear arms but in today’s world restrictions are not going to matter. If people want to commit a crime with a gun, they are not concerned about breaking a law about having a gun. Also, many times the restrictions are not even enforced; in 2003 Americans for Gun Safety reported that 20 of the nation’s 22 gun laws are not enforced. So, I do not think that the government’s restrictions are necessary.

2/20/2009

David
Warren Area High School, Warren,Pa
In our constitution the federal government has the final say. Local and state laws can not conflict with national laws. SO, according to the constitution this is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. Also, guns are a right given to us by the constitution and under no circumstance should be taken away.

2/20/2009

Chris
GAHS, Greencastle,PA
I would have to say after reading the second amendment that it’s not right for the federal government to take our right to bar arms. I don’t think that if our fore fathers would have written in the Constitution about the 2 amendment if they didn’t think that it was something that they thought everyone had a right too. Further more, there is always going to be crimes committed with guns whether you make it harder to get or not , people will still get a gun anyways .

2/18/2009

Haley
Corry High School, Corry, Pa
I believe the second amendment protects an individual's right to bear arms. Beyond performing background checks on potential gun purchasers, I believe that local and state governments should have no authority to place limits on firearms. I do not believe that safety concerns justify gun control measures because the only people that they hurt are the law abiding citizens. Government officials can put bans on firearms in an effort to control crime, but criminals who intend to possess guns will not let bans and regulations prohibit them from obtaining firearms. People with criminal records however should have stricter rules then those who do not, but the rules that are in effect today restrict all citizens, not those who need to be restricted.

2/17/2009

Gary
Corry High School, Corry, PA
I believe when our forefathers set up the constitution, they didn’t have any idea that crime rates would be so high like they are today. The right to bear arms is something that all citizens of the United States of America have and will keep as long as the United States of America stays as a whole. I believe that we should all obtain that right, but not abuse that right as well. Guns are not meant for killing others unless it is war. War is where no laws exist and a gun is something that no one can stop from using in war. Law enforcement can not stop crime nor can they prevent it. If a person is to commit a crime with a gun, I personally believe their right to a gun should be suspended for life unless that criminal is sent into a combat zone outside the United States and its territories

11/4/2008

Monica
Monessen High School, Monessen, Pa
I think that people should have guns ONLY when its acquired to them. I really don't think that people who don't have a license to have a gun shouldn't be able to own one. There is too many people who are getting murder or seriously endangered because of people with guns. This world needs to be safe.

10/17/2008

Keegan
Handy Middle School, Bay City Mich.
I think that anyone with a crimanal record should not even be able to legally hold a gun.

10/7/2008

Nicole D pd2
Northeast Highschool, Philadelphia, Pa
I do not believe that gun restrictions violate the second amendment because we were given this amendment to protect ourselves from harm, however more guns are being used to harm then to protect. I believe that there comes a time when you have to look out for the common good and the people and realize that sometimes the amendments just do not fit any longer, with the crime rate rising in cities as the one I live in, we should take more precautions to protect people and sometimes that means taking a gun away. I am sick of turning on the news and hearing a little child got killed in the mists of a shoot out and was killed. If guns are causing such a problem in all communties then no the goverment is not breaking our rights or amendments by stepping in and protecting the people under their leadership.

9/8/2008

Deena
Philadelphia, Central HS (RMR)
I do believe that local and state gun restrictions violate the Second Amendment

9/7/2008

Yana RMR
Philadelphia, Central High School
No, the Second Amendment is in no way being violated by gun restrictions. The intention of the Second Amendment was to protect the people from tyranny, more specifically the threat of a government treating them in a military fashion as the British had. In our day and age, it seems unlikely that the president will send out standing troops and declare a dictatorship or himself as monarch. The steadily increasing crime rate is a factor to both sides, as gun crimes would be preventable without arms, but at the same time one could not protect themselves. Hence why guns have not been abolished, simply restricted.

9/7/2008

Mauricia R.
Phila, Central High Rmf
I believe that the government has the authority to place limits on gun ownership based on a persons profession. The average person abuses the right to carry firearms because in todays society a person will not let someone disagree with them. They believe that they can shoot you if you do not agree with them. Fire arms were made to protect not harm innocent people

5/23/2008

Greg B
trinity, washington
For the amount of crimes committed with guns, there should be restrictions put on guns. Restriction does not mean guns are going to be abolished butit means there will be stricter laws placed on the ownership and the purchase of a gun. Therefore gun restrictions are not violating the rights to keep and bear arms so it is not violating the 2nd amendment.

5/19/2008

Roko
Warren Hill (Washington, NJ)
No. Gun restriction isn't gun "abolishment", the second amendment is still in place. Restriction places bans on guns that have no purpose but to kill (like semi-automatics) that doesn't mean that you still cannot own a gun.

4/21/2008

Sujith I.
Nimitz HS, Irving, TX
Every individual has the fundamental right to bear arms, however; some people should be restricted from having guns because of their incapability. This is where local and state governments come in, they should be enabled to restrict guns to those who pose a risk (e.g. NIU and V. Tech shooters). The D.C. gun ban had well intent because it was trying to lower crime rates in a place that had an absorbant amount of crime, it analyzed the statistics and put a law that seemed to apply. However a blanket law like this that applies to everyone is not just, it penalizes individuals who are law-abiding citizens that feel the need to protect themselves with a firearm. The best way to protect the population from gun misuse is better background checks that thoroughly check out the awaiting gun applicants criminal, psychological, and every type of history that applies. If there are better bakcground checks then tragedies like the NIU and V. Tech shootings would not happen.

4/18/2008

Regina T
Nimitz High School (Irving TX)
The Second Amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Those wanting to own and operate a gun need to know their limitations and always keep in mind the dangers. I feel that there should be regulations and laws restricting who can hold a gun. These laws are put in place to protect us, not to take away our freedom.

4/17/2008

Joey W.
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
Well as we all know people just cling to guns because they are "bitter", as senator Barrack Obama stated. Since we all know that everything he says is correct, the Second Amendment is out dated, and guns should be banned across America. When I say we I mean Obama followers, and since I will vote for McCain in the up coming election this could not be further from what I truly believe. Restrictions are needed for due process to weed out the people who are not serious about the responsibilities of owning a gun. Those who want to bear arms should still have that right, but they are still very serious and dangerous weapons to be used with caution.

4/17/2008

Ashley C
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
Restrictions placed on possessing a gun and your right to have one are two separate things. I feel that restrictions placed are not a violation to the second amendment but a protection to the general public. I think the restrictions made benefit more than they hurt. Restrictions are what are supposed to keep things like the university shootings from happening, without them, anyone could own a gun, placing many in danger. For those responsible enough and who care enough to go through the process to be able to legally carry a gun, I'm sure the restrictions are not burdensome. I mean, what would they be used for other than hunting, protection, or the few that collect. the restrictions made are very reasonable and not a violation to our Second Amendment right and should therefore be followed.

4/17/2008

Ana B.
Nimitz High School (Irving TX)
The gun restrictions don’t necessarily violate the second amendment. Governments should have the ability to place gun restrictions on people to be able to do their job and protect people. With the crime rate rising we the people need to be able to feel safe when we walk out our doors. I mean not all people that have guns put them to good use. On the other hand the constitution’s second amendment does state that we have the right to bear arms there for restricting it might cause I whole different problem. There may pros and cons to this issue the problem is to figure out which is more important.

4/17/2008

Emily
Nimitz/ Irving
I believe that the local government should be able to step in and make laws to protect their citizens. I believe that in the right to bear arms, however when your right to bear arms conflicts with others safety, your right becomes second in importance to the well fare of others.

4/17/2008

Michael W.
Nimitz High School (Irving)
I believe that local and state gun restrictions do violate the second amendment. You should be able to own a gun if you want to and use it if you have to such as to protect yourself if necessary.

4/16/2008

Emarric
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
While the constitution states that we have the right to bear arms, there is no reason that everyone should be allowed guns. Some people are not of right mind. Gun laws protecting individuals and those limiting who should be allowed to obtain them are necessary to ensure our safety.

4/16/2008

Nick B.
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
I don't feel that gun restrictions violate the Second Amendment. We have to remember that the restrictions by the local and state governments are put there because they are trying to reduce crime and protect us.

4/15/2008

Helen
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
Right to bear arms is important so that we are able to protect our selves and our property but the regulation of gun control is important because I don't want hoodlums shooting my family. That would not be rad. "Make love, not war!"

4/15/2008

Shareef
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
The right to bear arms is definitely important for self protection. Nobody wants their family to get shot up and have no way to defend themselves. At the same time regulation could help things like this from happening.

4/15/2008

Kaitlyn
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
I believe local governments should be able to establish their own gun laws. I think it would cause less crime and it doesn't completely violate the second amendment because people should and still have the right to protect themselves, but there still needs to be bigger limits on the use of guns.

4/15/2008

Taylor F.
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
I do not think that the government should be able to put any restrictions on citizens who would like to bear arms. I do understand that crime rate is high, but even if the government takes away the right to bear arms, the criminals would still be out their, and they would still be harmful.

4/14/2008

Kati M.
Nimitz High School, (Irving, TX)
I believe the government should be able to put gun restrictions on people. The crime rate is rising and it will continue to rise if we don’t put some restrictions on these deadly weapons. If they don’s start putting restrictions on guns it will seem as the government doesn’t want to help save peoples life’s because they think it infringes upon the second amendment and I don’t think that is right. The bottom line is we do need restrictions because with out restrictions things could get ugly.

4/14/2008

Janeth G.
Nimitz HS (Irving, TX)
I believe that our local government should not impose gun restrictions on the community. We clearly have an amendment that gives the citizens the right to bear arms, so why should are local governments interfere. And in my opinion the local governments that put restrictions on gun possession isn't going to help crime rate go down because the criminals who are using these guns for malicious reasons are going to do their business elsewhere.

4/13/2008

Robert M
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
I think that the government needs to take action in defining the extent of gun restrictions. I believe that we are entitled to bear arms as defined in the constitution, still its hard to watch on the news the damage that possessing a gun can do.

4/11/2008

Kayla
Nimitz, Irving
I have a hard time finding a simple solution to the problem of gun control. The second amendment gives us the right, I believe, to possess guns. However, since they are often used only for criminal purposes, I question if we truly need them. If the government tried to confiscate the public's weaponry, it would not only violate the amendment, it would probably be ineffective in preventing criminals from keeping or getting guns. I don't think it is necessary for everyone to have guns, but since it seems virtually impossible to completely rid the public of them, I see little good in making the attempt.

4/11/2008

Brittany I
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
Many people in this country own a gun. The problem is that there are people who use those guns to harm other people. It is because of those people that the state and local governments want to restricting gun laws. But this is unconstitutional, so what do we do? There should be some sort of age requirement, every one should have to go to a gun training class in order to get their gun license. And also,persons who are convicted of felonies should not be able to be in possession of a gun and be strongly punished if they are caught with one.

4/9/2008

Micah J
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
My thoughts on this topic is there should be restrictions now days on guns. The forefathers made this amendment a couple hundred years ago when all they had was muskets and powder guns. It is different now you wouldn't want people of the streets having fully automatic weapons like an army. Also, there should be restrictions on selling arms to people of multiple felonies and especially ones that have convictions linked to guns.

4/9/2008

Dalton R.
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
I believe that local governments should not be able to make gun control laws. That is the Federal governments job to do so because local governments do not always have the power needed for this kind of control.

4/9/2008

Alex L.
Nimitz, Irving
I believe that there should be gun control and limitations on certain kinds of guns. Guns that can pose a safety threat and that have a greater possibility of being used with criminal intent should be restricted to those individuals that have the authority to carry guns. With all the technological advances that have been accomplished, recent firearms are extremely powerful and dangerous if used improperly. Citizens would not object to having stricter safety laws with firearms and for those who desire high caliber weapons should acquire a special permit from the state.

4/8/2008

Jennifer T
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
I think that the local governments should be allowed to limit gun restrictions just to keep innocent citizens safe. There should be heavy restrictions on who can have a gun and why they have it in the first place.

4/8/2008

Elizabeth W.
Nimitz HS (Irving, Texas)
I believe that the restrictions placed on guns does not violate the Second Amendment, simply owing to the fact that the amendment was written in a time and place where guns where needed for protection and food. Now we live in a world that revolves around violence, whether over seas or across the street, everywhere we turn there is a weapon and without restrictions in place everyone would be able to own and use it, most in ways that are not beneficial to society. With these restrictions in place we are ensuring the safety of the citizens of America, not violating the amendment.

4/8/2008

Megan E.
Nimitz HS (Irving, TX)
I believe that local governments should not have the right to ban gun use, or enforce unreasonable laws on the matter. The right to bear arms in the second amendment clearly states that the “people’s” rights should not be “infringed upon”. Therefore, I believe that the local governments should just let it be how our forefathers intended it.

4/7/2008

Danny N., Pd. 6
Northeast High School, Philadelphia, PA
I think that the local and state governments should put their own gun laws in order to reduce crimes which involve guns. However, they can't ban guns because that will abuse the second amendment. We all have the right to bear arms and no one should take that right away from us. This would make things worse. On the other hand, cities that have many crimes like our city should have some limits. The government needs to put more strict laws on the cities with high crime rates. Even though we all have the right to bear arms, we shouldn't abuse it and do all the wrong things. Guns are meant to protect, not to take innocent lives away.

4/7/2008

Anthony H.
Nimitz HS/ IRVING, TX
I personally believe that people should not have the right to bear unless the individual proves that they are not responsible to have such a right. In my opinion a person only has two reasons to own a gun. One reason is for hunt of game, and the second would be for protection. Other than that I can not think of a reason to have any type of gun. Individuals that prove that they are not capable of owning a gun should be restricted by the law if the individual is not in jail already. As for an entire city restricting everyone for the reason to fix the problem a few people cause sounds kind of dumb, and I would think that it would make many people of that city very unhappy.

4/4/2008

Naomi M.
Nimitz High School (Irving, Tx)
I do not think that local governments should be able to establish their own gun laws. Americans are guaranteed the right to bear arms and city governments should not be allowed to take that right away. I think that each city should be able to decided upon the level at which they enforce this law, but they can’t take that right away.

4/4/2008

Rachel P.
Nimitz Irving
Local governments should be allowed to regulate gun ownership, but they can't ban it or control it all together. I believe there should be an age law for owning guns but not a ban on their sale or use. It is not the right of the local government to control gun liscenses unless in the circumstance of a violent criminal record or other justification.

4/4/2008

Lindsey
Nimitz High School/ Irving
Government and state authorities do have the right to limit gun ownership. Each state may have a particular reason for limiting or allowing the use of guns, for example: New York and Philadelphia's attempt to reduce crime rates. If the country is allowed guns in the first place, like many other privilages, restrictions are needed.

4/4/2008

Ethan K.
Nimitz/ Irving, TX
Though i don't like the fact that people have the right to carry around guns, it is a right protected by the Second Ammendment, and, therefore, must be protected.

4/4/2008

Lindsey
Nimitz High School/ Irving
Government and state authorities do have the right to limit gun ownership. Each state may have a particular reason for limiting or allowing the use of guns, for example: New York and Philadelphia's attempt to reduce crime rates. If the country is allowed guns in the first place, like many other priviledges, restrictions are needed.

4/4/2008

Ethan K.
Nimitz/ Irving, TX
I think the founding fathers made the second ammendment due to their fear of King George III walking into their homes, and, therefore, i think it is an outdated law. But, all in all, the Supreme Court is there to upheld the Constitution, and they need to figure out to what extent gun laws can be regulated.

4/4/2008

Austin C.
Nimitz High School/Irving, TX
The 2nd amendment guarantees American citizens the right to bear arms - but the issue the Supreme Court will have to rule on is whether all types of guns should be allowed or if the most dangerous ones could be restricted. Although from a practical standpoint I support the restriction of overly dangerous firearms, the banning of any firearms is unconstitutional. Therefore, all types of guns should be allowed for public possession. Also, while many look at this issue and don't feel their rights threatened by some gun restriction because they still have access to some kind of gun, they must consider long-term effects. If some types of firearms are "too dangerous" in 2008, then perhaps all guns could be seen in the same way sometime down the road. So, in summary: Yes, local and state gun restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment.

4/4/2008

Riane
Nimitz High School, Irving TX
I think that local governments should be able to establish their own gun laws. The second Amendment should be kept in consideration, but safety concerns should influence who is able to purchase a gun and who is not. State and local governments should do anything in their power to protect citizens and lower crime rates, including placing limits on gun ownership.

4/4/2008

Olinda
Nimitz / Irving
States should not be allowed to ban guns altogether but, we must realize that the ban on assault weapons, the mandatory background checks, the waiting periods, and most other restrictions on gun sale are not unreasonable. Officials should be allowed to make laws to prevent tragedies and ensure the safety of their citizens.

4/3/2008

Ntiamoah. E pd4
Northeast High (Philadelphia, PA)
To begin with, I must say I am against the banning of guns in any state. I feel that the Second Amendment gives people the right to protect themselves. It is a law enforced by the Supreme Court that you have to follow as well as any other law. Therefore, the local or state government should not have a say or right to put into effect the banning of guns. Just as we have been following the Amendments in the pas, I believe we should continue to do so.

4/3/2008

Tim C
PHS-D (Portland, CT)
State and local governments should be able to control gun laws to an extent. In times like today, we need safer laws to protect the public. Banning all guns would not work, but limiting who gets to use the guns and what times of guns people can have should be enforced.

4/3/2008

Monica W.
PHS - D (Portland, CT)
I think that people should be able to have guns, but that local governments should be allowed to place restrictions. However, those restrictions shouldn't make a person unable to obtain and have a firearm, like in Washington D.C., where even though the law states you can have a gun as long as it is registered, they haven't registered guns for decades now, thus making it impossible for anybody to have a gun unless they registered it in the '70s.

4/3/2008

Kelly L
PHS-D (Portland, CT)
I think that a complete ban on all guns is a violation of our right to bear arms and is considered unconstitutional. Although placing more restrictions on guns in certain areas that have a high crime rate would be beneficial.

4/3/2008

Damon S
PHS (Portland, CT)
Making guns illegal for use will not solve the murder rate in America. If the government makes guns illegal Americans will still use them to kill each other. Some drugs are illegal but Americans still buy, sell, and use them daily. If the government makes guns illegal it will only keep them out of the hands of the honest hardworking Americans.

4/3/2008

Rebecka C.
PHS-D (Portland, CT)
I think that it is very important that the Second Amendment be respected, while still keeping in mind the safely of American citizens. While some restrictions will benefit both gun owners as well as common American citizens, once those restrictions become overwhelming, they begin to infringe upon our Constitutional rights.

4/3/2008

Allie C.
PHS-D (Portland, CT)
I believe that there should be heavier restrictions on the ownership and purchasing of hand held guns in the United States. I do not believe ,however, that guns should be banned completely. Guns should be available to those people who want protection in there houses but not without first getting a permit to own a gun. I think with stricter restrictions, gun crime will lessen and the United States will be a safer place.

4/3/2008

George, P.
PHS-D (Portland, CT)
When the founding fathers wrote about the right to bear arms, they put enough responsibility in our hands to protect ourselves. The regulation or ban of firearms to prevent crime would be like regulating spoon size to control obesity. We are responsible for our own actions and the government is not there to nanny us in making the "right" decision.

4/3/2008

Keenan T
PHS - D (Portland, CT)
I think that local and state governments have the right to limit or restrict gun ownership because the officials on the state or local level should know what is best and necessary for the well being of their citizens. Nonetheless i think that there should not be a full ban on guns because hunting is necessary to keep animal populations down and having a hand gun may be necessary for protection depending on the danger level of the area. Also, i think that the process in obtaining a gun should be lengthly and involve mental and criminal backgrounds.

4/3/2008

Chelsey A
PHS-D (Portland, CT)
I believe that banning guns altogether is not the right thing to do. People will find ways to get guns no matter what. The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms however putting certain restrictions could help lower the rate of crimes and deaths involving guns.

4/3/2008

Lindsey J
PHS-D (Portland, CT)
Although guns are dangerous you should not be able to ban them. The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms for our protection. A ban in any state would be a violation against our rights. I don't think that the Second Amendment protects an individual's full right to bear arms unconditionally only because there are many people abuse the right to bear arms. Therefor there should always be guidelines on the Second Amendment.

4/3/2008

Kellsie R
PHS - D (Portland, CT)
We can't ban guns altogether, there should be restrictions on the gun laws though. We have to realize that the constitution was written over 200 years ago and this was the second amendment and that, was also ratified almost 200 years ago. Times have changed, back then guns were a necessity, they needed them to protect their families from Indians and wild animals and they needed guns to provide for the family. But times have changed a lot. We don't have to worry about the indians attacking and we don't need them to provide for our families, because we all go to the store and buy pre-packaged meals. But I still feel that we should be able to have guns. But I think that we have to have tighter restrictions. We can't just give anyone a gun, but people should have them for protection and/or recreational activity. I think that guns are a safety cushion for some people who live by themselves, and without it how can they protect themselves? I Think that people should be allowed to have guns, but with restrictions.

4/3/2008

Olivia N.
PHS-D (Portland, CT)
In my opinion, guns are only a source of violence. People use it for self-defense, but do they necessarily want to kill in order to protect themselves? I understand that some of us are vulnerable, but do we need guns to show that we can take control? There are good and bad things about guns, yes, but they cause unwanted injuries and deaths. This right should be limited to the Americans who don't use it to kill, but to protect. Guns that fall in the wrong hands will and have caused problems for our country. People who are clearly responsible, with no criminal record, and are mentally stable should be the only ones with guns in their homes.

4/3/2008

Damon S.
PHS Portland CT
Making guns illegal for use will not solve the murder rate in America. If the government makes guns illegal Americans will still use them to kill each other. Some drugs are illegal but Americans still buy, sell, and use them daily. If the government makes guns illegal it will only keep them out of the hands of the honest hardworking Americans.

4/3/2008

Rachel B
PHS-D (Portland, CT)
I believe that restrictions on guns is necessary and very important. when the second Amendment was written, the time was nothing like ours today. Today guns are being used in many ways that the men who wrote the Amendment probably never though of. I believed they put to much confidence in us, or didn't think hard enough how the times would change. Registration of guns should be carefully held, with fluent checking of the buyers history and yearly checkups on the location of the buyer and the gun itself. Imagine if these regulations were taken away. anyone would be able to legally buy guns. with little or no registration of the the gun itself. This could cause disaster and cause more deaths then there are currently with the restrictions. If unregistered guns are used in crime, it is much harder to track it,find it and solve a crime. The rights to bear arms is a right that not all of today's people should have. regulations of guns and restrictions are a good thing. without them i believe crime would get out of hand. Besides its not like a gun always protect you. Thefts occur regardless to the person owning/having a gun or not. Guns are not a great source of protection considering they are banned from so many places, like they should be. Imagine a person able to walk into a school or another public area with a gun just because he os she wanted to. Its not safe or right in any manner.

4/3/2008

Benjamin M.
Portland High, Portland CT
A full restriction on possesion of all firearms in the United States is unconstitutional. The second amendment states, " 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." I believe all those who posses a firearm, should have a gun licsense, but all those who are capable in the U.S. should be allowed the opportunity to register a weapon. All firearms which are registered legally should be used for recreational use (hunting) or for protection at the regusterd residence. Those people who have guns in public should be fined or tickeded unless the firearm is necessary for there occupation. This will help bring the crime rate down but wont be violating the second amendment becouse people are allowed to bear arms just with certain restriction.

4/3/2008

Tiffanie K.
PHS-D/Portland /CT
Banning guns completely would be completely unreasonable. Especially for those who use guns for recreational purposes. There has to be another way for people to have their cake and eat it too. The Second Amendment clearly implies that the right to bear arms is for the citizens. I believe that there should be restrictions put into place that will prevent guns from ending up in the wrong hands.

4/3/2008

Evan B
PHS-D (Portland, CT)
I think that a total ban on guns in the United States would be a violation of the second amendment. In other countries there are much less severe gun control laws, and they have a lower gun crime rate. I think that since the United States tries to control the guns so much, it is almost a type of reverse psychology. If the United States didn't make so many restrictions then maybe the number of crimes with illegal guns would go down. If the United States were to make some restrictions, or guidelines, they should be along the lines of: if you committed a felony of any kind, or a crime in which guns were involved you wouldn't be able to apply for a gun. Another restriction on guns should be that if a person has a mental disability that could possibly effect his/her judgment, then I don't think they should be allowed to have a gun. With these and other guidelines gun control could be better.

4/3/2008

Mike B.
PHS-D/Portland/CT
Do i feel the restriction of guns violates the 2nd ammendment? Yes, many people in this world do not get guns for killing people but for fun (hunting) and protection. For example, if someone broke into your house. I do also believe that there should be restrictions in certain situations but a ban of guns would do nothing because there are so many other things that can do the same thing as a gun. If they ban guns they would have to ban gasoline, knifes and anything else that has a potential of killing someone. I believe guns are alright to have as long as they stay in the right hands and are in the hands of people with good judgement.

4/3/2008

Mike V.
PHS-D/Portland/CT
Although I believe that the local and state gun restrictions could a positive affect on our society, I do believe that some restrictions do violate the second amendment. In our country today, crime is a very big problem and many deaths are related to gun violence. Some restrictions should be enforced regarding guns but done so legally without violating the second amendment. An individual should have the right to bear arms but some restrictions should apply, keeping certain weapons of the market and for military or police use only. However these restrictions should be passed through government, making it a nation wide restriction. In some cases local and state regulations made it nearly impossible to have the right to bear arms, which goes directly against the second amendment. Even though I may agree with restrictions being put forth against guns, I do believe that local and state gun restrictions violate the second amendment.

4/3/2008

Josh S.
PHS-D / Portland / CT
If there was to be a ban on firearms, it would be unconstitutional because the second amendment guarantees the right to own a gun. There should be limits placed on the people who can own firearms, but an overall ban on all firearms should not be put in place.

4/3/2008

Amanda M.
PHS-D/Portland/CT
When the Second Amendment was made it was a totally different time period than now. Back then, “protecting one’s self” had a completely different meaning than now. Homes up near the northern boarders of America had to protect themselves from things like Native Americans, thieves, and wild animals. These were real issues that Americans had to face on a day to day basis. At the time the Constitution was being written the Founding Fathers had to consider what laws needed to be made for their specific time period. However, they did not know that the future would become so violent and twist the words of the Second Amendment and interpret it in a way it was not intended. I believe that the crime rate is ridiculously high and there should be a restriction on guns. I believe that a "regular" citizen should not be able to carry a gun, as well as own one. Aside from officers of the law or other security jobs that make carrying a gun mandatory, guns should not be allowed outside of the workforce. At the end of a day’s work, the guns should be left in a safe or vault at their work place, and are not allowed to be taken home. I think there should be a law where gun production should only provide guns for war purposes and jobs that require guns. Guns should not be able be bought by anyone else. With this, I think that crime rate will decrease.

4/2/2008

Anthony H
Nimitz H.S. / Irving
I am against the banning of guns in any state. I feal that the right to bear arms is a right that is needed for people to feel safe. If the right is limited, people would have no way to protect themselves if their homes were being invaded. I feel that maybe certain people should not be alowed to buy guns, but I feel that unless a reason is brought up that an individual should not have gun, everyone should be allowed to bear arms.

4/2/2008

Nate
Groveton High School (Groveton, NH)
I do not like the idea of restricting guns to people. I do think that the background checks are a good thing though. But they are a little bit out of control because if you have committed any crime then you can not buy a gun. I think that the gun restrictions are ok how they are and should stay this way.

4/2/2008

Ron P.
Groveton High School (Groveton, NH)
I do not believe local gun restrictions violate the Second Amendment rights to bear arms. Initially the concept was implemented because militia were local armies used as protection against the British or other foreign invasion. I am sure it extended to protection against Native Americans (Indians) given the history and relationship at that time. Of course financing the militia was difficult for local towns and settlements so allowing the private ownership of guns killed two birds with one stone (or muzzle loader) so to speak. Today that thinking is out dated. The NRA fears a loss of individual rights and that without the private ownership of guns that our own government could enforce an inappropriate marshall law. Also, they want to protect hunting, which in some more rural areas is certainly appropriate. Thus allowing states to restrict or support the ownership of guns at least gives citizens a choice; an opportunity to live in a state (yes you might have to move) that allows the rights as that citizen believes they should be applied. Allowing more local control on this issue allows the opportunity to use common sense when creating legislation and alleviates the frustration of a top-down approach to an issue that is better served by local decision makers and individual privilege.

4/1/2008

Chris S.
PHS-B (Portland, CT)
I feel that a complete ban on guns would be unnecessary and a violation on our rights as Americans to bear arms. However, a limited restriction on gun possession could prove beneficial when considering the high crime rates in certain areas in the U.S.

4/1/2008

Katie O.
PHS-B (Portland, CT)
I think that cities should be allowed to place restrictions on the ownership of guns. Although in the Constitution is says that people have the right to bear arms I think it is important to control how people use weapons. If everyone was allowed to have handguns, they could get into the wrong hands. This could very easily raise the level of crime. Putting a ban on handguns without a license could lower the level of crime immensely.

4/1/2008

Brittany J.
PHS-B (Portland, CT)
I think the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms for self defense, but I don't think it gives us the right to keep a gun on with us at all times. I don't that huge guns that would be used in wars should be allowed to have a license for. I don't think they are needed, unless a war is being fought.

4/1/2008

Sarah N.
PHS-B (Portland, CT)
I think banning guns is a good and bad idea. Of course, the obvious- people own guns to protect themselves. Not everybody owns a gun to hurt others. But on the other hand, people with guns kill people all the time. Guns are very dangerous and there should be a law against them. They shouldn't be completely banned, but they should definitely have tough restrictions.

4/1/2008

Matt L.
PHS-B (Portland, CT)
I think that it does violate the second amendment because if you go through the process of getting a gun license then they should not be allowed to take the right to carry a gun away from you. However if you are a convicted felon that has known for using a gun illegally then yes i do think that you should not have the right to carry a gun, also they should not be allowed to sell guns to someone with a criminal record.

4/1/2008

Karissa R.
Groveton High School (Groveton, NH)
I feel that the States do have authority to put limits on gun ownership. The second amendment does state that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (violated), but, it was also ratified in 1791. Times have changed and I think States do need to be concearned about regulating gun control. Crime rates are high and for states to limit the purchase of guns would hopefully lower this. I think safety is a big issue here. If regulating the sale of guns will provide more safety for the general public and pose a problem to individuals rights, It is more of a trade off. If a person needs a gun for a legitimate reason such as hunting then they should have no problem going through a proper procedure to get it. I believe that limiting gun control would prove to be benificial in the end.

3/31/2008

Stephanie
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
I believe that the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms out of self defense, but I do not believe that it gives us the right to keep a sniper rifle as our constant companion. However, since some civilians have found it necessary to use a sniper rifle to shoot and kill other civilians, I must say that it is incumbent upon the states and local governments to make and enforce laws that restrict the sale of such weapons to convicted felons. I also believe that ownership of sniper rifles, machine guns and other large arms is completely unnecessary unless it is for military purposes and military purposes only.

3/31/2008

Sarah C.
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
I believe that local and state gun restrictions do violate the second amendment. First of all if someone is going to commit a crime he or she will find a way regardless of gun restrictions. I agree with gun licensing and criminal background checks before selling a gun to someone.

3/31/2008

Olivia
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
Guns are meant to be a source of protection, and gun control legislation keeps them from being used otherwise. State and local governments need to place restrictions on means of violence, to protect people from themselves and each other.

3/31/2008

Su
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
The local government should have the authority to place restrictions on the types of guns available to the general public. Safety concerns should definitely justify gun control measures because it's still a weapon like the others just easier. Whatever restrictions that can be placed on criminal usage of the gun, should be taken to the full extent. Which makes it that much harder for the illegal use of the firearm, because you never know when that nice neighbor may get sudden a loose string in his head.

3/30/2008

Sarah F
Northeast HS (Philadelphia, PA)
I remember one of my lesson discussions on the Amendments, from a history teacher last year. When talking about the Amendments and some of my Legal Eagle work I did in my other school, we came to the agreement, that it's all about how the amendments are interpreted. In this case, the Second Amendment acts in protecting an individual right to possess firearms for private use. That seems clear enough to me.But the other argument could be brought about by saying that local and state governments feel that they must have the authority to places limits on gun ownership because in considering all the violence caused by it, then it becomes a threat to others rights not only private citizens but government also. My opinion, there should always be safety concerns in making these kinds of decisions.

3/30/2008

Harrison
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people- but guns make it a lot easier. The second amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but what means “arms”. A handgun? A rifle? A grenade launcher? A sniper rifle that can kill someone from two miles away? A nuke!? Gun control measures should be taken by local and state governments to reduce crime, but it should be done in a way that still honors the 2nd amendment. Restrictions should be made, but in a manner that is not obnoxious as to make it impossible for a person to own a gun. The goal is to keep guns out of the criminal’s hands, not everyone’s hands.

3/30/2008

Beau P.
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
I believe that letting local and state governments control the laws about gun control violates the Second Amendment of the right to bear arms. But, I also believe that states should not sell guns to convicted felons.

3/27/2008

Ruvim Y
Northeast HS/ Philadelphia
I believe that local governments should set there own gun laws. A city like Philadelphia would want tougher gun laws to prevent crime. Most guns in philadelphia are used against people. A city such as Lancester will want less strict laws beacause most of the population around Lancester are hunters and they use there guns for hunting. Why should little gaming cities pay for murder rates of big cities?

3/27/2008

Arsen K. 1-st period
Northeast HS/Philadelphia
I do not think that local and state governments have the authority to place limits on gun ownership. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and should remain so. There are many ways to deal with crimes, other than making laws banning them. Criminals will get guns if they want to anyway.

3/27/2008

Rob C.
SHS,Stroudsburg
No the state governments do not have the right to place a limit on gun ownership because in the second amendment states that as citizens we have the right to bear arms as an individual or a militia. The second amendment lets you have a weapon but you should be sage and justify gun control measures.

3/27/2008

Catherine M
Stroudsburg JHS
I think that local gun restrictions do violate the 2nd amendment because people should be allowed to own guns for security or like hunting. But I think it violates the second amendment for a good reason, and that’s to keep people safe. However I think that it’s should only be limited with people who are criminals or accused of a crime.

3/27/2008

Caroline K.
Stroudsburg, Pa. SJHS
I think that the right to let people carry guns shouldn’t be around. It’s extremely dangerous, and lethal. The rule is around to keep people safe, however in some situations it’s ok. I think it’s alright for people to have guns in their car or when you’re hunting, but you shouldn’t be allowed to just carry one around wherever and whenever you want. You should be allowed to have guns, but with many restrictions.

3/27/2008

Brandon W
SJHS
I think it depends if there should be a ban on guns because if a kid gets a hold of his dad’s gun he could come to school with it and kill someone. Also if you have a gun and someone like steals it then they could kill someone and frame it one you. But if someone tries to kill you in your home and you had a gun you could fight back. I think as long as the guns in your house and some place you know your kid can’t get it then it is alright.

3/27/2008

Danny P.
Stroudsburg JHS
No it does not violate the 2nd Amendment because the law was created to protect people. It increases the safety of Pennsylvania and all the other states. But if they have a license to carry a gun well they should be able to carry a gun because you have to pay for that license. But people should be carrying around BB guns instead of real guns if you want to hurt someone because those BB guns hurt.

3/27/2008

Kai A.
Stroudsburg Pa
After reading the second amendment, I do think that the government has the right to put gun restrictions because there has been too many gun violence in America. Too many fatal shootings, and too many crazy people that have guns in the palms of their hands that will not do the right thing with the weapon. I do think that the second amendment protects your right to bear arms but with just some restrictions. But I don’t think in my opinion anyone needs a gun accept people in the war or the police.

3/27/2008

Venayah McC.-H.
Northeast High school/Philadelphia
I don't think that local and state gun restrictions violate the second amendment. the second amendment states that you have the right to own a gun for protection. But now and days the second amendment isn't being followed for it's purpose because people aren''t really using the guns for protection but as a tool used to kill. Besides, I see more stories on the news about killing instead of stories abot people using the gun as protection

3/27/2008

Mac T.
Stroudsburg JHS
No, local and state governments have no authority whatsoever to place limits on gun ownership. That’s like letting local and state governments place limits on the 1st amendment. There is no reason for it. That is a violation of our freedom. The 2nd amendment says you have the right to bear arms, not you have the right to bear arms with certain restrictions. It’s not right if you don’t get the full effect. The 2nd amendment protects a person’s right to bear arms unconditionally and not with restrictions. If you want to put restrictions on the amendments then the national government should change them, not the local and state governments. I think our founding fathers knew what they were doing when they came up with the amendments, so therefore nothing should be up to the local and state governments if it has to do with the national government.

3/27/2008

Briayanna H
SJHS
I think that they do have the authority to place limits because of the fact that some people use guns for no reason and some have guns just to have them. I think that safety concerns justify gun control issues because a child can get control of a gun and think they know what they doing and really don’t know. Having a gun without a license is really unsafe.

3/27/2008

Chris G.
stroudsburgJHS
I don’t think the government has a right to place restrictions on guns. The second amendment clearly states that everyone has a right to bear arms. If the government places a restriction on gun laws, it would be the same thing as taking away freedom of speech. There are people who use that right for bad things but what about the people who don’t. Say someone has there house broken into and they don’t have a gun to protect their family. What do they do? I think the second amendment is right!

3/27/2008

Kacey J.
Stroudsburg
The Second Amendment protects a citizen’ right to bear arms. Although it’s a different world than when the Constitution was written, the amendment is still in the Constitution. There should be permits and such for a person to be able to get a gun, which is not infringing upon their rights. There should be a process for getting the gun, which doesn’t in face go against the amendment. If you aren’t prohibiting getting guns, just making it a process, the Constitution is still fufilled.

3/27/2008

Kevin H
Stroudsburg JHS
What should be done with having guns is to have some type of back round of the person trying to buy the gun and they should register it to some type of machine so if any crime happens they know who they had sold the gun to. This would help find a lot of people who had done the crime even if they didn’t do it they still know who had it. This should be done because it doesn’t really violate any ones Second Amendment to have the right to bear arms. This is why I think this security analysis should be done to help and protect the people of the United States.

3/27/2008

Gilbert F.
SJHS, Stroudsburg
I think that every citizen of sound mind and having no criminal record has the right to own a gun. However I think that there would be some restrictions on where a person’s gun can be loaded and used. If people are really interested in lowering gun crime we should focus on the illegal selling of guns and not people who get their guns legally. I don’t think that people should be walking around with loaded handguns but we shouldn’t stop people from getting and using guns legally.

3/27/2008

Michael
Stroudsburg, PA
I think that restricting fire arms does go against the second amendment. The reason why is because the second amendment clearly says a person does have the right to bear a fire arm. There are a few acceptations though such as for criminals. I think that if a person has a bad criminal background and is considered dangerous, or if the person is not a citizen of the US, they shouldn’t have this right.

3/27/2008

Jackie E.
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
I think that amendments like this one and freedom of speech only go so far until it invades someone's right to pursue happiness. And in order to keep the peace and to keep citizens safe, state and local governments have the right to restrict guns. In theory, the only people that NEED guns are the authorities (police) to keep order. What do people need guns for anyway?

3/27/2008

Justin M.
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
If every local and state government had their own limits on what they think they should do, then why have a constitution? The right to bear arms is a privilege and state and local governments should not have a say so if people can have or can't own a gun. Now, I do believe if certain people do violate and brake any laws with a gun, then the privilege should be taken away from them.

3/27/2008

Roger G.
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
The right to bear arms is given to us by the constitution and no form of government has the power to take away from the people. If local government want safer streets then they should restrict gun control and amend the Second Amendment.

3/27/2008

Chanai H. 4th period
Northeast High School Philadelphia
I believe that local governments should be able to establish their gun laws. Since the crime rates are continuosly increasing, I believe that there should be a limit in the number of gun ownership. Although the second amendments states that we have the right to bear arms, i feel that you never know a killer until they kill. You don't know what anyone is capable of doing until they do it. This is why i feel that local governments should establish their own gun laws to reduce crime rate.

3/27/2008

Victoria
Nimitz
I think that all state and local governments should be able to set their own gun laws because in some cities the crime rate is much higher than others and I do not think they should have to tolerate violence due to laws that are not strict enough.

3/27/2008

Russell L
Northeast/Philadelphia
I believe that local governments have a right to set their own gun laws to a certain extent. The National government should have the power to override the local government though. The gun laws should be set based on the murder and crime rate of that area. For example cities such as, Philadelphia and New York should have more strict laws than others due to the high murder rates.

3/26/2008

Rodrigo Z.
Northeast High School - Philadelphia
Yes, I do think local and state government have the authority and should have the authority to place limits on gun ownership. Even though the second admendment protects ones rights to own a gun we should worry about safety first. People may argue that its for their protection incase of a robbery but its been used for much more. Having a gun in your house is not such a good idea when you got kids. Yours kids might not know there is a gun in the house but can find it. Only responsible parents should keep a gun but again nobody knows which ones are responsible. I think more states should put limits on gun ownership.

3/26/2008

Jacqueline
Northeast High/Philadelphia
I do think that the state andlocal gov'ts should place limits on gun ownerships as much as possible. If someone with a license to own a gun buys one, it is very easy for another person without the license to use that gun illegaly. Restrictions should always be put on something that can cause an accident or incident. As long as the Second Amendment is not completely violated, restrictions should get involved for the city's own safety.

3/26/2008

Julio A. 1st period
Northeast high school,philadelphia
Yes, they do because the have the right,even though it is a little risky because we do not know what kind of laws they might bring up; they might be goodor they might be bad. But overall,the have a great chance to have the authority to place limits on gun ownership.I think not only the government should start gettin worrried about this matter.Also parents at home shouldcare about gun and gun control.I think they should talk to their kids about the danger of a gun.The second amendment does protect the individual with the right to bear arms but nt the way they use. I think if you own a gun,you should use it in a smart way and not in a wrong way.

3/26/2008

Timothy
Nimitz High School (Irving, TX)
Local and state governments have no right to place limits on gun ownership. The only people that should have any restrictions placed upon them, are people who have been convicted of a felony, or some other crime. Every American has the right to bear arms, as stated in the second amendment. Safety concerns should be taken into consideration when the person in question has a criminal background, it should not blanket entire populations with gun laws, when many citizens in that population deserve the right to have a gun if they choose.

3/26/2008

Min-Young K.
Nimitz HS/Irving
While the 2nd amendment does qualify all people for the ownership of firearms, I am in full support of the tighter local restriction. I feel much more secure knowing that the government is warily keeping an eye on those who can purchase these deadly tools. Background checks and registration will definitely reduce unwarranted gun violence and abuse. I hope these measures will keep guns out of the wrong hands.

3/26/2008

Jackie P.
Northeast High School/Phila
We were given the right to bear arms, however our safety is more important. Crimes and homicides are out of conrol today with guns on the street. Practically anyone can get access to a gun somehow, someway. This is getting to be to the point when we cannot even walk down our city streets anymore without hearing gun shots. Even with gun laws, people are still getting easy access to guns whether then buy it or pay someone else to get it for them. To say the truth i think if we need a gun for protection to live, something needs to be done, more restriction and more safety. We shouldn't have to live that way...

3/26/2008

Brittni
northeast high school/philadelphia
I do think that the local and state government should have the authority to place limits on gun ownership. I think that they should because the crime rate in Philadelphia is ridiculous and none of these methods to stop the violence has worked. People may argue that it affects there rights but you have to give up some rights in order for a change to come. Only certain people should be able to carry a gun ex. police officers, detectives etc.

3/26/2008

Zeena G., 1st pd.
Northeast High, Philadelphia, Pa
Although we are granted the right to bear arms, the gov't has the right to place restrictions on this right. If they do not, we will have those who will abuse this power. It is especially important because of all the recent violence that has occured lately.

3/26/2008

Annie P.
Northeast High School/Philadelphia
I believe that the Second Amendment does protect our right's to bear arms, but then again there should be limits.Even if we have the privilege to bear arms, people can still take that as an advantage. the local and state government has authority to place limitations for people who own guns theirselves.

3/26/2008

Joey V./per.6
Northeast High/Philadelphia
Gun bans do violate the Constitution. This takes away peoples rights to bear arms. The right to bear arms is the right to own a gun. Giving the state the option to ban guns does violate the Second Amendment and they should not be able to set the gun reatrictions because it won't reduce crime. This may even increase crime.

3/26/2008

Jona D.
Northeast High/Philadelphia
I believe that local and state governments have the authority to place limits on gun ownership becouse our safety comes first. If there would be no limits then guns could be on the hands of everybody and that could be very dangerous for the place where we live. I think that no one should get a gun license without the backround check and waiting period because otherwise that gun could go on the hands of a murder.

3/25/2008

Candace C.
G.A.M.P./Philadelphia, PA
I feel that having states and cities change their gun laws in order to protect the people in the future is a great idea. Although some look at this situation as a violation of one of our constitutional rights (which in truth it is), we really need to look at how changing our gun laws will help us in the long run. If you read the Second Amendment, it states that the right to bear arms shall be forever given to the militia, but it doesn't state that this same right shall be forever given to the general public. Instead of looking at the negative side of this alteration, as Americans, people need to look at this argumentive situation can change our society with positive aspects. Gun control is not something that should be taken lightly, and if certain states and cities feel that they do need to alter their gun laws for the saftey of their citizens, I feel that they should be allowed. Becasue this isuue has become a "state to state issue", not everyone will be dramatically affected by it. Some states and cities may need to alter their laws more than others. More local regions need to learn from New York and Philadelphia and grow with us. Make alterations in local gun laws, save more lives.

3/25/2008

Andrei P.
Northeast High School/ Philadelphia
I think that local and state governments do have the authority to place limits on gun ownership. The crime rate is very high these days because many people have guns. So I think that the local and state governments have a right to make gun laws in order to protect the citizens. I think that a person's safety comes first so I think that in order for a person to own a gun, they should have a license for it. This should help a lot and I think that it would reduce the crime rate around the country.

3/25/2008

Nick T
Northeast 1st period
The 2nd Amendment states …the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This means that every individual living in the United States has right to own firearms. The Supreme Court acknowledges this but also accepts laws passed by state and local officials. State or local officials have the right to pass limited restrictions but have no right to go above the constitutions and ban firearms.

3/25/2008

Chad
Nimitz H.S./ Irving
I agree whole heartedly with the idea of local governments being able to pass their own gun laws in order to reduce crime. Guns are a good means of defense, but in the wrong hands, they can be used for criminal action. People say that guns kill people. This is true, although, a person has to be wielding a gun in order for it to do any damage. So, all in all, I say that local and state gun restrictions do not violate the second amendment. People will still be able to recieve guns, but it will make it just that much harder for them to fall into the wrong hands.

3/25/2008

Stefan T
Gamp Philly
After reading the second amendment I do believe that the goovernments have the authority to place limits on gun ownership. There are to many deaths going on in our country and especially in Philadelphia. Without a backround check no one should be able to buy a gun. I say this because if a murderer walks into a gun shop and asks for gun and the seller doesn't know who he is we are basically promoting him to go kill more people.Without the proper backround check and waiting period no one should be submitted a gun license. The states that have high murder rates should not be allowed to sell guns at all, it will only make things worse and it is for the worse and right now during this time we need things for the better, to better. Our counrty all good sitiautions, anything that is going to make our counrty go to a downfall shouldn't be issued to any citizen especially guns.

Related News
3/18/2008
Justices agree on right to own guns
Associated Press

4/8/2007
The Right to Bear Arms
Justice Talking

Related Resources
This Speak Out does not have any related resources
Share