« Jessica Browning (FGCU): DUI Bust | Chad Nykiel (FGCU): “Death Penalty (Personal Experience)” »

Kyle March (FGCU) 2nd Amendment Rights in Jeopardy

It clearly says in the United States Constitution that citizens should have the right to bear arms, so why would any politician despute the ownership of guns?? I understand denying convicted violent criminals the right, but to say that every citizen can not own a gun is obsurd. Are they really that naive, I mean I thought Barack Obama was supposed to be able to see things from the real perspective..

Tell me, what would be accomplished by banning the sell of assault weapons (AK-47’s, AR-15’s, or any other gun you can find at a gun store)? People say well “who needs a gun like that anyway?”, but the fact is if you take those guns away from people who legally own them you would only be giving a hand to criminals who illegally possess these guns (the automatic versions, not the semi-auto firing versions). The guns used in street violence are usually not legally owned and registered, so how can you ban that? They have no idea who has guns unless they are registered. So by banning these guns you are only taking weapons away from people who lawfully own them, and leaving the military and criminals as the only people who will own them.

I mean how naive do you need to be not to see this? In 1975 They banned ownership of HANDGUNS in Washington D.C, not bazookas or .50 cal machine guns, but HANDGUNS FOR GOD SAKE, a clear violation of the Constitution, only to see their crime rise and to have the ban overturned later.  Why? Because the criminals still had their guns, and the citizens were left without. So much for being able to defend your home and family.

The right to bear arms was given so that people can defend their homes from attackers, but how the F%$# can you protect your home with a hunting rifle when the attacker is carrying an automatic rifle?? You are simply giving criminals an upperhand and why do they not see that?? Automatic guns are already banned, but they are still abundant in the streets. Obama would only be doing the criminals a favor by banning the sale of assault weapons.

This entry was posted on 7. April 2009 at 21:39 and is filed under Introduction to Sociology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “Kyle March (FGCU) 2nd Amendment Rights in Jeopardy”

  1. Jonathan R. Jacob says:
    8. April 2009 at 02:32

    To an extent, your argument holds water, as it is one of the great standbys of such groups as the NRA and other pro-gun groups. True, the constitution does grant the right to bear arms, but at the time of writing, the framers had no knowledge of AR-15s or AK-47s. The technology was limited and the explosion it has experienced needs to be addressed by the US government.

    Argue home defense all you want, but there is a line between home defense and home offense. Since 1996, violent crimes involving handguns has been dropping, stabilizing around 10%. The majority of these crimes are committed with handguns and other such weapons, not the AR15 that you are so keen to keep handy. As such, it is logical to assume that the criminal breaking into your house, if armed with a firearm, will probably have a handgun. Since the majority of people in this country don’t know how to proficiently aim and fire, especially under such tense circumstances, the best weapon for home defense is a shotgun loaded with buckshot. Not only does the sound of the shotgun being cocked act as a deterrent, if they fire they don’t need to worry about the bullet traveling through walls and potentially hitting bystanders.

    So, as there is no need to keep an assault rifle for home defense, the next purported purpose is hunting. Hunting with one has the following effects; (a) damaging the creature so that it’s useless as a trophy, (b) making so much noise that it scares off other prey, and (c) putting so many holes that the meat quality is damaged. So, it’s much more efficient to use a hunting rifle as opposed to an assault rifle.

    At this point, I fail to see where it would be necessary for a private citizen to own an assault weapon when there are better choices for hunting and home defense. Since the majority of criminals do not have access to these weapons outside of organized crime which poses little threat to individuals in their homes, why would we not ban assault weapons when their only purpose is to kill many people as quickly as possible?

  2. student says:
    8. April 2009 at 04:45

    But the problem is not the people who own these guns legally, it is those people who have them illegally. Believe it or not people collect these guns and only use them at the range.

    And of course they had no idea that we would have these guns, but I mean it is just technology. The right to bear arms is so we can defend from attackers, and man nowadays criminals carry AK’s, whether people want to accept that or not. And by banning these guns you will not affect the flow and possession of guns that are illegally owned. People need to keep up with the times. I am not in organized crime, but I bet I can find you an automatic rifle if I tried.

    The purpose of these guns is not to kill as many people as possible. I would rather have an AR when facing a gunman then a shotgun which only holds a couple shots, but that is just me.

    I would love to debate this, but I hate explaining things online.

Leave a Reply