Skip to main content

Discussion Forum: Fall 2013

Public Discussion Forum

Cactus -- Fall, 2013

If you would like to add comments to our Discussion Forum, please email us at Please add your name and where you are from to the e-mail.

What Should We do About the 2nd Amendment?

Keep It?  Change It?  Repeal It?  Other options?

POL 301, 16596, Hybrid On-line

(Meets in person twice, at the beginning and at the end.)

1/2 Semester:  October 16 - December 6, 2013


Public Discussion Posts:

On November 21 Matthew, a Professor at EKU, wrote:


Discussion of the Second Amendment often gets bogged down in discussions of personal safety and personal freedom rights.  While these are important, they mask the larger problem of the first clause of the amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”  Personal defense and hunting were not what the Founders had in mind.  (It might have been what the Reconstruction Congress had in mind, though, when it passed the 14th Amendment.)  The states which organized the United States were interested in maintaining a civic militia that could defend itself from both foreign and domestic aggressors, but could not be used against the people itself.  Military service would be an integral part of the American citizen’s make-up, even if the citizen never owned their own weapon.  The fear of the states was that a disarmed population would be unable to defend itself from either invasion or state-sponsored terror and tyranny.
Perhaps one of the better examples of this is the Reconstruction Congress, which considered ready access to weapons an essential safeguard for protecting the former slaves in the South.  The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not guaranteed when the Ku Klux Klan can lynch with impunity.  Gun control laws in the South were intended to prevent African-Americans from defending themselves, and the Jim Crow state governments would further protect the KKK.  The Second Amendment’s protections of minorities in the South guaranteed their ability to form ad hoc defenses against the aggression of their states and allowed them to live as free citizens.  At least until Reconstruction ended and Southern blacks were disarmed as part of driving home their second-class status.
Modern gun control laws serve the same end out of ignorance rather than malice.  Since the creation of a professional army in the 20th Century, most Americans have been far removed from the militia ethos the Founders experienced.  They think of guns as something professionals use to defend most Americans, not something most Americans use to defend themselves.  To such people, gun control laws make sense –we have no need of a militia, and the police and certified defense experts will protect us.  Self-defense isn’t a part of their citizenship.  To many Americans, though, the militia ethos never left them.  To many more, while the state sanctioned support of systematic crime has ended, the state is still not successfully protecting them from terrorism by gangs and drug lords.  The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is no less violated for those killed by a shooter in a red bandana than a white hood.  For these people, the full integration into American society requires a recognition that they can protect themselves up to at least the same standards as those who can turn their defense over to someone else.
If there should be any changes to the Second Amendment, they should be to clarify and improve the country’s commitment to the militia ethos, even if many Americans choose not to exercise that right.  An essential part of American community is the right and ability to defend that community against aggression and not be reliant on whims of states and neighbors which may not be interested in defending everyone.



On November 17, Tyler from Hebron wrote:

  The second amendment is one about which the United States' founding fathers felt very strongly for a number of reasons, but mostly because they had just fought a two-year war against the British army, and if the colonists had not had access to firearms, the war would have never happened. Guns are simply the most essential item of defense, because the only thing that stops a person with a gun is a person with a gun. The framers' motive behind this was that, when another rebellion needed to occur, the people would be ready to fight in order to preserve their freedom. Any sort of gun-control legislation will only remove guns from the law-biding citizens, and not the criminals who do not obey the law in the beginning.

    Ambiguity in the second amendment is a bit exaggerated. The second part of the amendment ("...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed") is much different than the first part ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...") in that the keyword in the second part is people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was need so that citizens could defend themselves when need, not the Militia. The "people" is in contrast with the "Militia". Yes, it is true that the nation needs a good military force for protection (which is in the first part of the amendment) but the amendment specifically mentions the people so that they could fight against the Militia, and that it could never take away the right of the people to protect themselves.

    Changing or repealing the amendment would only further endanger the innocent people with guns to defend themselves. Since criminals do not regularly follow laws, why exactly would they follow laws about their own, perhaps stolen guns? Do legislators expect criminals to just turn in their guns? The criminals are not the only ones about whom to worry with this issue; it is also the government. A person would call the police when a shooter is firing at that person's house, but who would a person call about the police shooting? The simple fact is that guns are the only thing that is keeping the United States from becoming a tyrannical police state, and the government knows it, which is why the American citizens will always need their guns, not just for safety, but for freedom.

On November 17, Caleb from Augusta, Georgia wrote:
I believe that the Second Amendment should stay unamended and unchanged.   As soon as the Constitution was drafted, many people were split on how the government should be run.  These two camps fell under Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton.  Jeffersonians took a more conservative approach to the Constitution and said that government should only do what it must within the limits of Constitution.  Hamiltonians took a more liberal, less strict approach and said that government should do what is deemed good for the country, regardless of the Constitutional wording.  This led to the formation of the first political parties, and is what has shaped the diplomatic process of our country ever since. 
      The danger of Hamiltonianism is that with no ambiguity left in the wording of our documents, we leave ourselves open to be taken advantage of by the government, a possibly tyrannical situation that the citizens of the colonies found themselves in under the rule of the Crown.  We must rely on the due diligence of those with this power to protect our rights as U.S. citizens.  With enough ambiguity left in the Constitution, we can remember the strife that our founding fathers found themselves in, by understanding that these inherent rights can’t just be given away, lest we must fight to earn what should be given by being a human being on this Earth. 
        If we give up our right to bear arms that we see as inherent, we open ourselves up later to give another right away here, and another there, until eventually we are slaves to our government.  Many different scholars have argued this fact for centuries to include famous quotes by Jefferson and Ben Franklin, as well as the formation of the Clausewitzian Trinity from Carl von Clausewitz.  Government should work for the people, not the reverse.  In this manner, personal control and sale of arms should be highly limited from governmental proceedings.  Let us remember our forefathers before us, and continue to strive towards a unified people, free of the chains of oppression. 


On November 17, Lakeista from Richmond wrote:

    The 2nd Amendment is the right to bear arms, arms are considered weapons and the right to bear arms is the right to own and carry weapons, which includes a gun. The 2nd Amendment reminds us that these are rights that shouldn't be taken away from us. I feel that we should stick to this. In my opinion the second Amendment should not be repealed, we should of course have strict laws on purchasing and owning a gun but taking away our right to bear arms is very much unnecessary. We already have good gun control laws such as age requirement and background checks, we should also consider mental stability. These laws just need to be strictly enforced. I understand that guns have caused a lot of harm and  violence in our nation and I agree that it has gotten out of control lately, but I don't think our government should let the actions of some people dictate the majority of people who are gun owning citizens who keep the law. I think the 2nd Amendment is very important to us as people for different reasons, whether that be protection or a hobby. Guns are a way of life for some people and some of the only protection and comfort others have. Not only that, it's part of our freedom, taking away that right will be taking away part of our freedom promised to us. I feel that our nation would worry about this leading to other rights being taken away from us in the future. Also I feel that criminals would find ways to get guns just like they find ways to steal and break the law today. And then us law-abiding citizens wouldn't have much of a way to defend ourselves. So to some up my argument I feel that if we was to repeal the 2nd Amendment, it would only create worse problems than it would solve.


On November 17, Jessica from EKU Richmond wrote:

I believe the second amendment along with the other Bill of Rights should remain untouchable. The right to bear arms is in my opinion the most important right we have as American Citizens. We must be able to protect ourselves from those who are doing wrong or attempting to bring us harm. The founding fathers of the United States found this the second most important thing for Americans to have rights to protect themselves even from the government. It would be unconstitutional to infringe on or alter these rights.


On November 17, Benjamin, address not reported, wrote:

The second amendment is one of the most controversial topics in the country. Should we keep guns, or should we dispose of everyone’s rights to keep them? This is what everyone thinks of when you bring up the second amendment. There is so much more to the issue than people understand.

I agree with the second amendment, the country is born on the basis of freedom. States being able to have a militia to secure their safety, allows its members to feel as if they are somewhat in control. It gives them the feeling that if something is threatening their state that the government won’t handle, they have the power to legally do something.

The right to bear arms is the part of the second amendment that people tend to make into the whole amendment. I agree with the right to bear arms, it gives citizens the feeling that they can protect themselves. However, I also understand that this amendment was made during a time when guns were way more essential than they are now.

I think we should keep the amendment the way it is. Although there has been problems with gun violence, this was not due to a faulty second amendment. It was because of the individuals own problems. There should be no changes to the amendment, even though it could help people that are pro-gun rights, it could also hurt them. Putting any kind of gun owning laws in place, limits the freedom of the right to bear arms. Freedom is the basis on which the second amendment was made.

Although many people debate the second amendment, I believe it’s not in need of changing. Maybe in the future there will be a need for alterations. But as for now, don’t change anything that is not in need of changing. Instead, put more attention on greater needs.


On November 17, Marina from Louisa and EKU wrote:

I am a student at Eastern, and I feel that the second amendment should stay the same. There should be no repealing, or changing it. I don’t feel there is anything wrong with the amendment or how it is carried out in real life, as far as gun control. I am sure that when the founding fathers first thought up this amendment, they never thought it would become what it is. And maybe if they thought about the things we are now (abolishing or repealing it) then it probably would never be how it is. I believe that we have every right to keep guns. It is the irresponsible people who cause others to question this amendment. I think that once we start to appeal or change the amendment the worse things will get. Sure, maybe government officials, or those who sell the guns should take more precaution when selling these items or regulating them. The amendment not only states we have a right to bear arms, but it mentions a militia. Of course we as a country need an armed militia. They are here to protect us, and our country. The second amendment is what gives us our freedoms. Without our armies we would live in pure hell. People want to do away with an amendment that protects each and every one of you. Without a militia and guns we would have no rights at all. Also, we all have a right to protect our family and property. The purpose of the second amendment, like the other nine amendments of the bill of rights, was to protect people from the government. The nature of the second amendment being to protect freedom, the right to bear arms is absolute. Maybe this is what the government wants. Do away with the second amendment, and then they can’t defend themselves. I’m not a radical person, that would think that, but you can’t rule it out. Those who try to weaken or water down the second amendment are just on an ongoing slippery slope. It would be hard to satisfy everyone, and I don’t feel would be the right path at all.


On November 17, Kristen from EKU Danville wrote:

The Second Amendment has always held a very high importance in our society. I personally value this amendment because I believe that each and every citizen should be able and allowed to protect themselves and their other loved ones. Some of the incidents that have occurred in our country in the past couple years, the amendment had been took advantage of with all of the shootings that have took place in the school up north and then the shooter took his life. In occasions like these the amendment is being used in the wrong way and it is a real shameful thing to use our amendments in the worst possible way to hurt our country instead of just protecting your family. On the other hand, citizens deserve the freedom to bear arms and to have the freedom to protect themselves, family, or property. If this amendment is only used for the good then it definitely should be kept because it is an important one to keep around.


On November 16, Amber from EKU Corbin wrote:

I am a firm believer of the 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.” I think it would be unconstitutional to remove this amendment because it would be taking away an American right. Without this amendment Americans would not have any type of personal security or self-defense against crimes, terrorists, or invasions. Some Americans depend on firearms to hunt food for their families to survive on. I think that if the second amendment is removed due to crime rates or fears then the first amendment should also be removed because the freedom of speech can also led to deaths and crimes. For example the deaths of the Freedom Riders who were demonstrating their freedom of speech traveling state to state to abolish segregation but led to several deaths and injuries. The Constitution of the United States of America is the foundation of this country and should not be changed. 


On November 16, Regina from EKU wrote:

The government cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens and is not legally responsible for doing so. Having the ability and the capability to protect yourself and your family from armed attackers should be seen as a personal responsibility and the government has no right to deny responsible adults the ability to do so legally. The criminal elements of our society carry concealed weapons despite laws designed to prevent that. If our laws do not deter illegal use of firearms in the commission of a crime, they certainly should not prevent or deter the lawful use of firearms to prevent such crimes! Therefore I believe we should use the laws of reason and do what I believe our founding fathers would really want: use our brains to do what we need to do to keep the people safe from violence. That means keeping the Second Amendment the way it is.


On November 12, Tommy at EKU wrote:

The Second Amendment is The Write to Bear Arms, this meaning the write to own firearms for recreational or self-protection. Within the past ten years there have been many issues with this write, from terrorism in and out of the country from terrorist attacks to school shootings, with this being said gun control has become a mass media topic. Now there are groups out there to kind of help fight against the gun control act they are passing on simi automatic high powered rifles such as the most popular the AR-15, these organizations consist of the “NRA the “national rifle association”. These groups are trying to prove there is nothing wrong with gun control within the United States. But with this being said yes there are gun control laws such as having to have a clean record to buy a gun meaning you cannot be a convicted felon you also have to be above the age of 18. These are all great laws but within the US there is no law on the amount of or style of guns one can purchase or on ammo. With this being said people thanks to the internet has access to all the military grade equipment they could want such as bullet proof vest and riot gear. Meaning someone plotting to make a terroristic attack can be 2x the threat and ready for anything in full combat gear. This has a lot of citizens uneasy knowing that anyone at any time without any psychiatric evaluation can have a high powered assault rifle, even though the ATF “Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms” tracks every purchase on guns. This means at all times they should know every gun you have in your collection. But the uneasy side of all this is people can go to things like “court days” and buy anything firearm related without being tracked as much. So I agree there should be gun laws but they should not take every gun away and have the routine you go through much stricter.


On November 12, Danny, address unspecified, wrote:

Governments are controlled by people and people are corruptible.
The freedoms that Americans freely surrender today will be the same freedoms that our grandchildren will fight and bleed to regain.  Let's make sure they have something to fight with. Leave the 2nd Amendment alone.


On November 12, Lisa from Corbin wrote:

 I believe in the second amendment. Each person has the right to defend their family and property.  Having said that, I do believe that too many
people are going to the extreme with this amendment.  They are going to malls, theaters, and schools and killing the innocent.  If it was only for the hunting of animals then that would be alright, but when weapons are being used to kill other humans then that is where I have a problem.  I personally do not own a gun and I never will!  I think that if the guns get in the wrong hands (which we have seen) then that is where the problems begin.
This amendment was written when there was a need for guns and survival.  But now a days we can just go to the market for our food.


On November 12, Miranda from Corbin wrote:

The right to bear arms has been promised to every United States Citizen for a very large time throughout our nation’s history. Our country was founded with this right and amazingly it still exists today. Gun control is something that people often feel strongly about, and rightfully so. I do not feel as though the right to bear arms is maddeningly ambiguous. It can be scary having possession of a weapon that can end a life so easily and quickly, yet as long as these weapons are used responsibly there is no reason to fear guns. For protection, guns often do make people feel safer by knowing the power that guns hold. In case of emergency, a gun could be the difference between life and death. I think that there should be some changes made to this amendment, although I do not think it should be revoked. One change that should be made to the second amendment is requiring successful completion of a gun safety course upon acquiring any gun. A gun safety course can be similar to obtaining a drivers license where a gun owner will study gun safety and then take a written test. After a written test, the gun owner can demonstrate the proper use of the gun to an appointed official by loading, unloading and turning on and off the safety. By putting these extra precautions in place, we will make sure that every gun owner knows how to safely use the gun which can prevent future gun accidents. If these accidents are prevented, more people may see the benefits in the freedom to bear arms and our nation will be a safer place for everyone.


On November 12, Jenean from Stanford wrote:

The 2nd Amendment should be the first amendment, as no freedom survives without the ability to preserve one’s life; even God-given rights are meaningless if you’re dead or enslaved.  America’s founders knew that the only way government power, which has a propensity for self-expansion that always leads to tyranny, can be limited is by a reservoir of concurrent power in its citizenry. The real threat of armed resistance is the only way of insuring that “we the people” have an immediate and effective method of defense against would-be dictators.  A ballot box cannot replace an individual’s right to self-protection, nor can/will a State-paid police force offer 24/7/365 protection from government oppression. Today, more than ever, individuals must retain the ability and the means to protect their lives, liberties, and property.

America is, perhaps, the only State that has ever existed in which the government does not have a “monopoly on the instruments of violence.” Our government is compelled by the Constitution to share the instruments of violence, and rightly so—freedom only lasts as long as the means and the willingness to fight for it. We must preserve the 2nd Amendment and resist all attempts to infringe upon it.


On November 12, Shaela at EKU wrote:

I strongly agree with continuing to keep the Second Amendment that is listed  
in the Constitution. I feel that every amendment is important, and they were  
all put they for a reasonable cause. The Second Amendment means that it is  
the individual right to be armed, it will be respected and resulting that  
individuals will be secure against tyranny, invasion, and crime. I believe  
you cannot simply remove an amendment, doing just that guarantees that the  
others could be taken away at any time. Once the right to own firearms is  
eliminated, eliminating all other rights will soon be amended as well. And  
all you can do is watch it happen. The framers of the Constitution wrote the  
Second Amendment for safety against criminals, and also as national security.  
The Founding Fathers did not trust standing armies, meaning armies that are  
kept equipped during peacetime. Also, it was as an insurance policy against  
our own government. They considered the greatest threat to liberty to be a  
national government that has acquired too much power. While America for more  
than two centuries has been the freest nation on earth, the Founding Fathers  
did not know what the future would hold. So, they decided that all people  
should have the choice to be armed. It was the ultimate insurance policy to  
keep the government in check and keep the people free. If the Second  
Amendment has done us no harm no, why change the law for no acceptable  
reason. To me, it would simply be pointless, and only cause caus.


On November 11 Gil, a professor, wrote:

I don’t think we should do anything to the body of the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.  We should leave them just as the first framers worded them, and repealing or revising any of them at this stage would be an exercise in futility.  Where clarity is an issue, and where clarity can become ambiguity over time, certainly amendments should be considered, applied, or appealed, and the framers in their genius accounted for that as well.  But the original wording of the Constitution through the Bill of Rights is a beautiful and elegant document that really needs no improvement per se.
The problem with clarity is not in the document, but in our evolving interpretations, through which process we have lost sight of what the framers intended in their context.  As to the Second Amendment it seems to me, as an historian of the 18th century, to be quite clear if you don’t ignore its beginning and only focus on its end.  The framers could very rightly have stipulated that “the right of the people to bear arms” applied to the necessity of hunting, or to the defending of their homes and persons, but for them such applications would have been, as they would say, self-evident within the nature of their times.  Instead, they only stipulated that the constitutional right applied specifically to a “well-regulated militia,…necessary to the security of a free State.”  This puts the statements soundly within the realm of government expedience, and when it becomes expedient to “regulate” those “Arms,” as it obviously has, we can and should and have done so, whether at the state or federal level.  But I think the regulations have definitely not gone far enough.  In the spirit of our Founding Fathers, I think practical gun control should mandate that every household have, maintain, and learn to use a muzzle-loading, black-powder musket for hunting and personal defense, and that for all other purposes, police and military (i.e. designated militias), regulations limiting all cartridge and magazine loaded weapons, or effectively any and all weapons technologies developed since 1791, to their exclusive use should be in place.

“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.”


On November 11, Jason from Berea wrote:

     There are two main reasons why I feel the Second Amendment should never be altered. First, I feel the intent of the Amendment was to allow Americans to not only protect themselves but also protect themselves from a Government that over ran their authority. The Founding Fathers appeared to be of one mind in the idea that the Government should be a small entity that fulfilled certain tasks but then stayed out of the day to day life of Americans. If the Founding Fathers left England because of an oppressive Government that did not represent them appropriately why would they come to America and institute the same ideals? I feel they wanted Americans to be armed and informed about what the Government was doing and if necessary to push the Government back in line. But, no Government fears and unarmed people. Any out of control Government can use the Military to oppress people but that is much harder when the people are armed. The Founding Fathers may have made political choices that moved more toward a bigger Government but I do feel their intention was still as it is written in Amendments like the Second.
     Second, I feel the right to protect yourself and your family was a founding principal of this country. If Americans weren't armed how could they have formed the Militias that fought for our freedom? Being self-sufficient was a trait I feel America was founded on. So, being responsible for protecting yourself and your family was part of day to day life. Taking away the citizen's guns would have made no sense in the early days since that was a way to provide food and protect the home. Today we don't have to kill our food but the right to protect our home still exists. I feel strongly that the Second Amendment was a logical part of protecting the new American way of life and that has not changed.
     All Americans should have the right to protect themselves from danger and also from the danger of an out of control Government. As I mentioned earlier, no Government is afraid of an unarmed society. That is one reason I feel you see so much pressure to disarm America. As our Government grows larger and more controlling one of the last issues standing in the way of the escalation of oppression is the right to bear arms.


On November 10, Carly from Louisville wrote:

When discussing the Second Amendment one must realize what the Amendment is truly stating. The Amendment is simply restating that American citizens have the “God Given” right to protect themselves by carrying weapons. If we were to change the Amendment then this could possibly lead to more crimes occurring because people would then be illegally baring arms in order to protect themselves. American citizens are going to find a way to protect themselves from others no matter what the Amendment says. By keeping the Second Amendment as is, citizens will continue to feel safer knowing they are legally allowed to protect themselves. A country that takes away this “God Given Right” would be a country that does not grant protection for the citizens. This is not what America was founded on and therefor I believe that we should keep the Second Amendment how it is written.


On November 8, Samantha from EKU Corbin wrote:

    Overall, I think the second amendment should stay exactly how it is. People use firearms for several reasons, some being bad but some being for protection and hunting. There are some citizens who hunt their own food to feed their families, and although not everyone has a gun hidden in their home for protection, some do. That is their only way of feeling safe within their own home.
    There has been several bad incidents with guns happen in the past years, but taking away all guns from ordinary citizens will not help anything. Restrictions on gun laws are not a bad thing in my opinion. Criminals and mentally insane citizens should not own guns for the safety of others around them. However, just because they don't buy a gun the way they should does not mean they will not obtain one illegally. Anyone can get their hands on whatever they want these days, which is just another reason for not changing the second amendment.
    The second amendment is simply a right for citizens, the Bill of Rights was created for the purpose to protect and give freedom to American citizens. Changing the second amendment now would just destroy everything the Bill of Rights created. Once one amendment is changed it is just a matter of time before the others are altered.


On November 7, Michael from EKU wrote:

To answer the question directly, yes the second amendment should be kept. But in a sense, it would not matter in the slightest what any government chose to write on a piece of paper. To "repeal" the right to keep and bear arms would be an exercise in both futility and arrogance, for the rights stated in the Bill of rights are "God given" as the document states. By this language the founders were not implying that these rights were given to us by some higher power; God, king, government, but were innate to all mankind everywhere, and these men were simply acknowledging them formally in a system of government. The Bill of Rights as a document holds no actual power, the document itself is a formality for the legal system to reference in carrying out its duty of a fair trial. The Bill of Rights and subsequent constitution are documents that simply recognize the existing and basic rights of man and do not hold sway over a free peoples. Any government that tries to "repeal" or take away the rights stated in these documents is not a legitimate government who is working in the peoples best interest, they are either ignorant or tyrannical. Which it does not matter, for either spell the end of a free society and a decline into slavery whether it be quickly or through incremental change.


On November 4, Kristin from Crab Orchard wrote:

    I strongly feel that we need to keep the Second Amendment as it is and as it was intended to be.
    I am an avid hunter and thoroughly enjoy target practice but my opinion is not based on myself or what I enjoy.  My opinion to keep the Second Amendment is based on the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is at times, in today's world, very essential to preserving life.
    Guns are essential to hunting and therefore to the life of  your family if you rely on wild game to feed and sustain your family.  It is currently harder to afford to buy ammunition since the school shooting in Connecticut and I am not opposed to restrictions on gun ownership for criminals, mentally insane, child molesters, and etc.  Which leads me to the second and most important reason that I feel the Second Amendment should not be changed.  Criminals get guns, but they do not acquire them as you and I do.  They do not go through a process with a background check.  They do not even buy guns for their personal use.  Criminals steal the guns from law-abiding citizens and then they sell or trade the guns to other criminals or use them for their own mischief.  If gun control makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to buy and own guns, it will be that much easier to acquire a gun by illegal means.  
    With the increase in drug addiction, theft, and other crimes, it would be a poor vision to imagine changing the Second Amendment. 


On November 4, Bethany from the Corbin Branch wrote:

I believe we should keep the Second Amendment. One of the Government’s jobs is to protect the unalienable rights, which are stated in the Declaration of Independence. The Second Amendment protects our right to bear arms, an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. When people use guns to harm they are breaking the law. People who will break the law to harm will still break the law to keep weapons. However, people who will not harm and will not break the law will have no weapons. Therefore people who use weapons the wrong way will have them and people who need to defend their selves will not. The solution in this case would be to have more restrictions on ownership. There should be background checks and safety classes to keep weapons out of the wrong hands. Also, there should be more laws on what guns and weapons are legal to keep and what cannot be kept.

On November 3, Sydney (address unknown) wrote:

I believe that we should keep the 2nd amendment. The reason I think this is because the right to bear arms has been considered an American right. It allows the us as American citizens freedom and they can rely on themselves for safety instead of depending on the government for protection. We shouldn't change anything about the amendments they are there for a reason and if we start changing one we will eventually change them all in some way or another and then our country would just crumble. I believe they the government could possible make the ways to get a gun harder. I just feel like we need to have more education required before you own a gun or if you have a criminal record you can carry a concealed weapon. It isn't guns that kill people, people kill people.


On October 28, Ollie from Richmond wrote:
As I am a hunter and own hunting weapons I feel strongly that guns "rights" have limitations. Weapons created for military use (killing of peoples) have no place in the community. In the amendment gun ownership is for a militia and it is to be a well regulated one. To "regulate" ownership we have laws that ban the ownership of automatic weapons except to collectors, etc.
The general community has no need for bazookas, flame throwers, rocket launchers, or other military grade weapons. We can regulate ownership and should with back ground checks that actually work and restrict the types of weapons the general populace can own.
I don't agree with conceal and carry laws which allows nearly any person to carry a weapon.

On October 22, Aleesha from POL 101 at EKU wrote:
I believe that we should keep the second amendment. The second amendment is the right to bear arms, we have always been able to have guns and use them with a license. Sometimes people have and use their guns inappropriately. I think this is why the government questions whether to keep or banish the second amendment. Something I compare guns to alcohol, you can either be responsible with it or irresponsible. People are going to use guns to hunt, protect themselves and sadly harm others. But in the defense people drink alcohol because they are depressed and sometimes end up driving under the influence and could possibly kill someone else or themselves. There is going to be a risk factor in almost everything we do, maybe not as serious as killing someone but there is always that factor. Not every single person in America is always going to abide by the rules. People are going to misuse their privileges. I think that even if the law was banished people would still buy guns in the black market. Guns make people feel safe, they can use them if someone was breaking into their home and trying to harm them. They are used to hunt animals, which helps the environment not get over populated with a certain species. Guns can be used for both bad and good, but so can a lot more other things and we don't talk about getting rid of those things.


Open /*deleted href=#openmobile*/