In no event will we be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this website. Through this website you are able to link to other websites which are not under the control of [Ghostfighterradio].
We have no control over the nature, content and availability of those sites. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them. Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, [Ghostfighterradio] takes no responsibility for, and will not be liable for, the website being temporarily unavailable due to technical issues beyond our control.
During this episode of Paul Revere Radio, John Longenecker and I will be discussing disaster preparedness and urban survival. With these restrictions in place we are ensuring the safety of the citizens of America, not violating the amendment. 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.
Therefore, I believe that the local governments should just let it be how our forefathers intended it. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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.
If the country is allowed guns in the first place, like many other priviledges, restrictions are needed. 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. 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 , then perhaps all guns could be seen in the same way sometime down the road. Yes, local and state gun restrictions violate the 2nd Amendment. 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. Officials should be allowed to make laws to prevent tragedies and ensure the safety of their citizens. 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. 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.
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. Although placing more restrictions on guns in certain areas that have a high crime rate would be beneficial. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
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.
We have to realize that the constitution was written over years ago and this was the second amendment and that, was also ratified almost 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. 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. 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.
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. 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.
Kindle Feature Spotlight
The rights to bear arms is a right that not all of today's people should have. Besides its not like a gun always protect you. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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: With these and other guidelines gun control could be better. 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. 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.
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.
- Jessica, the Heiress?
- Money Demand in Europe (Studies in Empirical Economics).
- The Journey of Om.
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.
- The Freshour Cylinders (The Freshour Chronicles Book 2)!
- Ein Bodyguard zum Heiraten? (German Edition).
- Product details.
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. 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. 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. 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. However, a limited restriction on gun possession could prove beneficial when considering the high crime rates in certain areas in the U. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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.
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. State and local governments need to place restrictions on means of violence, to protect people from themselves and each other. 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.
GHOSTFIGHTER RADIO BLOG - Paul Revere Radio
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. A sniper rifle that can kill someone from two miles away? 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.
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.
- Bigger n Texas!
- Public Goods, Public Gains: Calculating the Social Benefits of Public R&D.
- Women Changing Work (Contributions in Womens Studies; 112).
- The Emotional Survival Guide for Caregivers: Looking After Yourself and Your Family While Helping an Aging Parent.
- Latina MILF Undressed and Uncensored;
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?
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. 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.
You should be allowed to have guns, but with many restrictions. 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. 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. 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 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. Stroudsburg JHS No, local and state governments have no authority whatsoever to place limits on gun ownership.
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. 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. Having a gun without a license is really unsafe.
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. What do they do? These are the people who say no. They are absolutist in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The organization claims an influx of , new members in recent weeks in the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Conn.
The NRA, already with about 4 million members, hopes that the new push by Democrats in the White House and Congress to curb gun violence will bring the membership to 5 million. The group has learned the virtues of being a single-issue organization with a very simple take on that issue. The NRA keeps close track of friends and enemies, takes names and makes lists. In the halls of power, it works quietly behind the scenes. It uses fear when necessary to motivate supporters. The ultimate goal of gun-control advocates, the NRA claims, is confiscation and then total disarmament, leading to government tyranny.
For generations thereafter, the NRA focused on shooting, hunting and conservation, and no one thought of it as a gun lobby. The turmoil of the s — assassinations, street violence, riots — spurred Congress to pass the Gun Control Act of , the first major piece of gun legislation since the New Deal. Supporters of gun control originally included California Gov.
Ronald Reagan, who worried about the heavily armed Black Panthers. In , a new federal agency charged with enforcing the gun laws came into being: Lawmakers raged against the terror of cheap handguns known as Saturday-night specials. Clifford Neal Knox — born in Oklahoma , raised in Texas, a graduate of Abilene Christian College — started out as a newspaper reporter and editor before founding, at the age of 30, Gun Week magazine. He wanted to roll back gun laws, even the ones that restricted the sale of machine guns.
He believed that gun-control laws threatened basic American freedoms, that there were malign forces that sought nothing less than total disarmament. There would come a point when Knox would suggest that the assassinations of the s and other horrors might have been part of a gun-control plot: Rampant paranoia on my part?
In the second half of the s, the NRA faced a crossroads. Would it remain an Establishment institution, partnering with such mainstream entities as the Ford Foundation and focusing on shooting competitions? Or would it roll up its sleeves and fight hammer and tongs against the gun-control advocates? Or flee to the Mountain West? My father and a lot of local club leaders and state association guys organized their troops. Theirs was a grass-roots movement within the NRA. The solution was to use the membership to make changes. The coup took hours to accomplish.
Gone were the Old Guard officers, including Maxwell Rich, the ousted executive vice president. His pugnacious approach, which rankled the Old Guard, was captured in a letter he wrote to the entire NRA membership to discuss the fight in Congress over gun control: Border Patrol agent and chief, Carter was an outstanding marksman who racked up scores of national shooting records.
He was convicted of murder, but the verdict was overturned on appeal. Over the next few years, NRA membership tripled. With the presidential election of Reagan, the energized activists went on the offensive, hoping to roll back the gun-control laws and, in the process, abolish the ATF. Aquilino, who became the top NRA spokesman, remembers those days as great fun: The hard-charging style of Neal Knox created internal and external turbulence.
Carter kept looking over his shoulder at Knox, who clearly wanted the top job. Cassidy portrayed himself in an interview with The Post as a reasonable man: It was hugely painful. Neal Knox hovered around the organization. He managed to get elected to the board in , only to be expelled a year later. Carter, meanwhile, retired in
Related Even Safer Streets 2011 - The Second Amendment as a Mainstream Value.
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved