Hopefully this will become a collection of excellent, well reasoned responses to common anti-gun articles and attacks.
Please quote the source article if you post here. I'll start, found this comment at the end of a vicious anti-gun attack on the NRA (source is at the end):
"Bravo for tackling a tough topic. I agree with you that the NRA's video is over the top, if not a stupid argument altogether.
I am a US citizen, and I do not own a gun. Neither am I a member of the NRA.
Here's the problem - The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution allows for citizens to own a firearm. The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times on this...
http://patriotpost.us/perspective/6265/print
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html
A history of the 2nd Amendment challenges and rulings can be found here...
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Second-Amendment-History.htm
Two of the most important are the ones listed in the first two links, voted on in 2008 and 2010.
Here's an excerpt that caused some confusion and needed clarification:
"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 Supreme Court ruled that ordinary citizens have the right to own guns, whether they are enlisted in a militia or not.
They also ruled that individual States do not have the authority, just as the Federal government does not, to ban guns.
Without a new amendment that changes this, the US Constitution will always allow citizens the right to own a gun. Does this mean that the average citizen should be entitled to military style assault weapons and high ammo magazines? This is the current topic, and there are multiple ways of looking at it depending upon your point of view.
On one side you have a group of very passionate gun enthusiasts. These are the nut-jobs you see on television and YouTube claiming that Obama/Liberals/Democrats are trying to take their guns away, and the only way that will happen is if you pry these weapons from their cold dead hands.
On another side you have a group that believes guns kill people, and the less we have in our country the better off we are. They have no problem with any new laws that would limit or control guns.
Somewhere in the middle, which is where most Americans seem to be, they understand that the 2nd Amendment was established for a reason. That reason goes beyond personal protection. The 2nd Amendment exists to help keep our government in check.
Let me explain...
When the Bill of Rights was first proposed in 1791(the 2nd Amendment is part of this), it was to enhance The United States Constitution, implemented four years earlier to replace the Articles of Confederation. Many state representatives distrusted the idea of a large centralized government that had the ability to raise an army. They were concerned that Federal rights would take away State or individual rights. The Bill of Rights addressed this issue by spelling out what rights individuals had, that the new (bigger/central/Federal)government could not take away.
In essence, if the Federal government became oppressive then they would have to disregard these rights.
You can see where some people might be a little anxious about the government telling them what guns, if any, they are allowed to own.
I understand the feelings on just about every side of this argument. As I mentioned, I don't own a gun. However, I would be the first person in line at the gun store if it came to a nationwide ban on guns.
A government that does not fear its people is a government that our Founding Fathers did not want.
My two cents, for what it's worth." - KD Rush
Source: http://scottswrittenwords.blogspot.com/2013/01/nra-proposals-new-low-in-misdirection.html
Please quote the source article if you post here. I'll start, found this comment at the end of a vicious anti-gun attack on the NRA (source is at the end):
"Bravo for tackling a tough topic. I agree with you that the NRA's video is over the top, if not a stupid argument altogether.
I am a US citizen, and I do not own a gun. Neither am I a member of the NRA.
Here's the problem - The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution allows for citizens to own a firearm. The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times on this...
http://patriotpost.us/perspective/6265/print
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372041,00.html
A history of the 2nd Amendment challenges and rulings can be found here...
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/Second-Amendment-History.htm
Two of the most important are the ones listed in the first two links, voted on in 2008 and 2010.
Here's an excerpt that caused some confusion and needed clarification:
"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 Supreme Court ruled that ordinary citizens have the right to own guns, whether they are enlisted in a militia or not.
They also ruled that individual States do not have the authority, just as the Federal government does not, to ban guns.
Without a new amendment that changes this, the US Constitution will always allow citizens the right to own a gun. Does this mean that the average citizen should be entitled to military style assault weapons and high ammo magazines? This is the current topic, and there are multiple ways of looking at it depending upon your point of view.
On one side you have a group of very passionate gun enthusiasts. These are the nut-jobs you see on television and YouTube claiming that Obama/Liberals/Democrats are trying to take their guns away, and the only way that will happen is if you pry these weapons from their cold dead hands.
On another side you have a group that believes guns kill people, and the less we have in our country the better off we are. They have no problem with any new laws that would limit or control guns.
Somewhere in the middle, which is where most Americans seem to be, they understand that the 2nd Amendment was established for a reason. That reason goes beyond personal protection. The 2nd Amendment exists to help keep our government in check.
Let me explain...
When the Bill of Rights was first proposed in 1791(the 2nd Amendment is part of this), it was to enhance The United States Constitution, implemented four years earlier to replace the Articles of Confederation. Many state representatives distrusted the idea of a large centralized government that had the ability to raise an army. They were concerned that Federal rights would take away State or individual rights. The Bill of Rights addressed this issue by spelling out what rights individuals had, that the new (bigger/central/Federal)government could not take away.
In essence, if the Federal government became oppressive then they would have to disregard these rights.
You can see where some people might be a little anxious about the government telling them what guns, if any, they are allowed to own.
I understand the feelings on just about every side of this argument. As I mentioned, I don't own a gun. However, I would be the first person in line at the gun store if it came to a nationwide ban on guns.
A government that does not fear its people is a government that our Founding Fathers did not want.
My two cents, for what it's worth." - KD Rush
Source: http://scottswrittenwords.blogspot.com/2013/01/nra-proposals-new-low-in-misdirection.html
Last edited:
