After watching the PBS Frontline documentary about the history and rise of the NRA's political influence answer the following questions. Keep in mind this is an emotionally charged, controversial and sensitive subject. Feel free to express your opinions, but be respectful of other opinions as well.
1. Identify two reasons why the NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation. Explain your answer.
2. If you were a Senator, would you have voted for or against the bill proposed by Senator Manchin? Would it depend on what your voters/constituents think? Do you agree that "something" has to be one about gun violence in America? If so, what should be done? If not, why not?
3. What is your opinion on the gun control debate in the United States? Is it more about ensuring our fundamental freedoms as American citizens or ensuring public safety? Why?
4. Do you agree with the logic of Wayne LaPierre's response to the Newtown tragedy, in that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"? Is the solution to the problem of gun violence at schools only a matter of providing better, armed security at these vulnerable places? Or is decreasing access to the type of military grade automatic weapons used in the shooting the answer?
5. Do you think that the writer's of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment anticipated it would protect people's right to own semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines? What do you think is the intention of the 2nd amendment? Or in this case does intention not matter?
36 comments:
1.) As the video said, the NRA plays the game of democracy very effectively. They will not allow freedom to be jeopardized in any way, specifically when it comes to the second amendment. They also have a huge following that is willing to take action.
2.) I would have voted for Senator Manchin’s bill. I wouldn't care what the voters think, something needs to be done – 26 people were killed at an elementary school because of a lack of gun control. I think the bill Manchin propose is what needs to be done. Extensive background checks should be performed, although his bill only specified at gun shows. If there is evidence of mental illness of a violent history, they should not be issued a gun.
3.) I think the gun control debate in the United States is more about people wanting their freedom, although it needs to be about public safety. I think the situation is comparable to a parent telling their child not to do something. This results in the child wanting to do the behavior even more. I think if Americans are told they can’t have guns, they’ll want the guns that much more and will do whatever they can to gain access to them. But, the issue needs to be about public safety. Innocent people like the Newtown victims, Gabrielle Giffords, and the Columbine victims should not have ever been harmed or been put in the way of harm.
4.) I do not agree with LaPierre’s logic in response to the Newtown tragedy. If you fight fire with fire, it just creates a bigger problem; it does not find a solution. I think the solution to gun violence at schools is a combination of better protection at the school and decreasing access to military grade automatic weapons. They’re military grade for a reason. Regular civilians don’t need access to them.
5.) I think the writers of the second amendment were just thinking of guaranteeing Americans the right to protect themselves. Back then, I don’t think they could have even predicted how weapons have improved and how they would be used now. Their intentions, I think, were innocent, but they don’t really matter because all of the events involving gun violence would have happened anyway.
1) The NRA is extremely successful in stopping gun control legislation. One reason is because they have a massive network of active followers. It is easy for them to communicate with members and unite them. Because they have so many active members, the NRA can tell persuade its members to vote against any laws against guns. These members are usually all also registered voters who vote so it is easy for them to stop any legislation.
2) If I was a Senator I would have voted for the bill proposed by Senator Manchin. The bill would not solve gun violence but it is a step in the right direction. If you factor is the voters, I would have voted for what they think so I could get re-elected. If I vote against them, it is likely that I will lose my spot in office. I agree that something has to be done about gun violence but the question is what. No matter what you do people will find a way to obtain guns so there is no stopping it. Maybe you could increase security measures but that does not guarantee safety.
3) I believe that people have every right to own and operate guns in a safe manor. It does not matter how much to enforce gun control laws, If someone wants their hands on a gun they will do it. Laws are being created to ensure the safety of people. Because weapons are getting more sophisticated, people are concerned about safety. The majority of people don’t want extreme laws on guns because they means they can’t purchase one for protection.
4) I agree with what Wayne LaPierre said in his response because it was well thought out but I think that he should have been more sympathetic because this was a tragedy. Yes, more security would potentially prevent this from happening but it isn’t realistic. It would cost too much money to maximize security at all schools. There is no answer to this because if you get rid pf high grade military weapons people will still be able to get their hands on them.
5)I do not think that the writers of the constitution anticipated the evolution of guns. They focused on what was happening at that current time and not the horrors of the future. The intentions of the second amendment were so people could own a gun to hunt for food or for protection. If the writers could have went into the future I think they would have written it differently.
1) The NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation because they are well equipped with resources, which they can use to their full advantage making them very feared in Washington. They know how to lobby because people who are against gun control feel very passionately about their second amendment right, so many gravitate to the same position the NRA holds. The NRA can then lobby the voters to vote the way they want them to.
2) I would have definitely voted for the senator's bill because I too believe that more background checks needs to be completed when guns are issued. I do think I would take into some consideration what my fellow peers and voters thought, but overall I would stick to my feelings. Something needs to be done, where there needs to be tighter laws. Everyone speaks about the second amendment, but I think everyone speaks so casually about it now. It's intent was not for everyone to just go around and carry guns and shoot people as they please.
3) I believe the debate centers more around people's freedom. I strongly believe some use the second amendment as their excuse that they should be allowed to carry a gun around if they wish because it is their "right". If the debate was more centered towards public safety, then I think change would've happened much sooner because of all the gun incidents and deaths that have happened recently.
4) Though I disagree with his statement, I understand what he means. The only way, at least it seems, is that to fight these guys is to draw fire as well in hope of stopping them before they have a chance to hurt anybody else. I don't believe that arming teachers or hiring more security would overall really help the situation. It would just create more chaos and more innocent lives would be at stake. I believe that if people did not have such easy access to high power weapons, the amount of incidents would decrease. They feel so powerful when they can stand behind something that can kill, so if you take away their source of power, you strip them of everything they believe they possess and instead are left being the cowards they are.
5) I don't believe the writer's of the constitution thought the 2nd amendment would be interpreted in this way. They were focusing on the present issues and I don't believe the could've predicted just how out of the hand the situation would and has become now. I believe the intention of the 2nd amendment was that people could gather and bear arms when their national security was being threatened. It definitely was not intended where people can bear arms and just shoot whomever they want. However, I believe intention doesn't matter anymore. People bend the words all they want to fit the context of their own personal intent. We need relevant laws now.
1. One reason the NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation is because they argued that it would be unconstitutional for guns to be outlawed. Many people don't take into account that times have changed and the constitution may be becoming outdated; they believe in that original document and refuse to stray from it. The NRA recognizes that view and uses it to their advantage when fighting gun control legislations. Another good strategy they used was the argument that "guns are the symbol of freedom in America" which makes sense to some but is ridiculous to others. The many members that the NRA have almost always support them in times like these.
2. If i were a senator, yes i would've voted for the bill proposed by Senator Manchin. I totally agree that something should be done about gun violence and no i would not take my voter's opinions into account because honestly, his bill was just closing up the loophole that allows people to attain guns illegally which should only be a problem for people who really SHOULD NOT have guns... This bill did not hurt either side, only helped people. The privilege of owning a fun should be very limited, and background checks should be more in depth. I realize that it's basically impossible to take away all of the guns from citizens who already have them, but i believe that you should only have a gun if it's required for your occupation (military, policeman, etc.).
3. I am 100% for gun control. For some, it's about "fundamental freedoms" but it should be about ensuring public safety for everyone. Obviously, some people can't handle that amount of freedom and we shouldn't risk anymore tragedies. If guns mean freedom in the sense of self-defense, then we can just find other ways of self-defense that can't kill multiple people at one time. If we had knives for self-defense we couldn't use them to go kill a bunch of people when we get too angry.
4. I definitely do not agree with LaPierre's logic in response to the Newtown tragedy. Yes, i guess it was a well thought out strategy for the NRA, but there are countless things that can stop a bad guy with a gun. Yes, better protection at schools would help and be good for them but to add security to every elementary, middle, and high school would be SO expensive. Decreasing access to military grade automatic weapons would be a better solution because people can shoot anywhere. Shopping malls, work offices, hospitals, theme parks, anywhere. If we add protection to schools then we should act protection to every place that typically has a lot of people.
5. I don't think that the writers of the constitution and the 2nd amendment anticipated the technological advances that would happen over the years. Their intentions were probably good in that they wanted people to be able to self-defend, but unfortunately the intention does not matter since times have changed so much along with the weapons being used by common citizens, which shouldn't be.
1.) Many people support the NRA and having so many supporters, they want the freedom to bear arms, “It has nothing to do with guns, it has to do with freedom”. The NRA is quoted to be, “the best equipped, most feared special interest group”. They support the 2nd amendment, which allows them to be successful in stopping gun control legislation. The NRA is the closest thing to “pure patriotism”.
2.) If I were a senator, I would vote for the bill because background checks are impertinent in ensuring safety. There are many people who value their 2nd amendment. However, there are even more people whose lives are at risk everyday without safety measures being taken. It would depend on what the voters think because it will be hard to win over the people who value the amendment. However, the bill should be favored because those who have a bad background should be the only ones concerned. Something has to be done so the focus would not be on what the voters think, it would be on what actions need to be taken. To control the gun incidents, there should be strict regulations to obtain a permit for having a gun. This could prevent a gun being given to the wrong person.
3.) It is both ensuring our freedom and safety because when all of the gun shootings occurred such as Sandy Hook, the right to bear arms was going to be taken away, however, it is an amendment so in the outcome, it was about ensuring our freedom and allowing us to remain having those rights.
4.) I disagree that, "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" because guns are already brought into the matter and scare people in these situations. More guns as a sense of power should not be considered. Using guns against guns only creates more concerns and problems. The access to the type of military grade automatic weapons should be regulated and in order to get a gun license or a gun, there should be more restrictions, which could guarantee it is not going to the wrong person. However, there should also, be more protection in schools and more vulnerable places for a sense of security and safety in case of an emergency.
5.) The writer's of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment anticipated that it would simply protect the people’s rights and freedoms. Back then, it could not have been anticipated that bad things would occur out of this amendment. They wanted to guarantee their right to defend themselves. However, in my opinion, the intention does not matter because if guns were permitted in the first place, an incident is bound to happen eventually.
1. The NRA is very successful in stopping gun control legislation because of their powerful demeanor and their abundant amount of resources. According to the video, the NRA is the "best equipped, most feared special interest group on capitol hill." This statement summarizes the power of the NRA. They have a lot of power and they handle the public outrage very well. In addition to more power, they know how to lobby the voters. Also, they have had a lot of power and influence at the state level. Key word: power.
2. As a senator, i would have voted for the bill proposed by Senator Manchin. Although increased background checks would help prevent tragedies from occurring, i don't believe the bill would change the outcome of the number of deaths drastically. There would still be a lot of illegal activities, and people who don't have a clean background can acquire a gun from someone who does have a clean background. Thus, i don't believe this process would fix anything significant. I think a more stringent effort needs to be taken to prevent tragedies. But, as a senator, yes, i would have voted for the bill.
3. I think the debate encompasses the issue of the people's freedom. Since the Bill of Rights states that we have the right o bear arms, and the constitution is the ruling voice in our country, this is where the issue stands. However, i believe that people who want to do harm, or want a gun, will get it - regardless of the restrictions. Murder is illegal, however it is still done. If people want to use guns for a bad purpose, increased gun control is not the answer. They will acquire a gun regardless. Basic fundamentals with familial values and morals need to be enforced.
4. I think the whole idea of fighting violence with violence is nonsensical. If this country is headed in the right direction, we should not be fighting guns with guns. I don't think a solution is increased security. Although it will help, some lives will still be taken. If a criminal has his/her mind set on something, they will take into account security as well. Thus, i don't think there is any real solution. The media should stop giving so much attention to these criminals because this could be an irrational motivation for fame. I think less exposure to these things through media and entertainment should be enforced. Even though decreased access to military grade automatic weapons would help, it does not guarantee murder to be eradicated.
5. Every generation becomes more and more violent- simply because access to weapons and the level of damage has increased exponentially. The writers of the constitution mainly had the people's rights in mind. Individuals had the "constitutional right to own guns" - probably to protect themselves. Intentional gun violence was not an issue back then. If we did not have access to guns, many problems would arise because individuals don't have protection. Either way, it will always be a problem. I think America needs to take steps in raising a better youth as good samaritans rather than spending so much time and effort debating a cyclical argument.
1.The NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation in that they are backed by rich conservatives who are able to give them money and resources to fight their political battles and they are able to reach and appeal to the everyday man and gun enthusiasts.
2.I would have voted based upon what the voters wanted for what I want. Therefore, I would vote for the bill seeing that majority of voters at the time were in favor of gun control legislation. I agree that something needs to be done about this issue because the status quo is not working or making people happy. I would like to see the extension of background checks for prospective gun owners to help ensure that people who get guns are those who are deserving of them.
3.I think the gun debate is all about people feeling like they would lose their freedoms. The public is protected by the police and military, so if the true issue about the gun debate was safety, I feel people would be more wanting to extend police and military protection.
4.Yes and No. While I do believe that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun, but I disagree with his definition of “good guy”. I think that the “good guys” should be trained professionals, like military and police, not common everyday citizens. When citizens feel threatened or there is an emergency, they call 911 for the police, they don’t go and call someone they know who has a gun. To increase protection, there needs to be more armed security in vulnerable areas.
5.I do not believe for a second that the writers of the constitution thought the second amendment would allow people to own semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. Although, their intentions don’t matter. The constitution is supposed to be a “living document” and therefore it should be interpreted to fit the current situation within the country.
1)The NRA is so successful in stopping gun control legislation because they promote that the gun symbolizes freedom and they have a huge network of followers that are willing to take action if that freedom is threatened.
2) If I were a Senator I would have voted for the bill proposed by Bill Manchin. I would consider what my voters think but it would be a heavy influence on my decision to vote for the bill because I do agree that something has to be done about gun violence in America. I personally believe that the use of all the heavy duty guns should be prohibited because there isn't a need for them.
3)I think the gun control debate in America was centered mostly around ensuring our fundamental freedoms as American citizens although it should have been about ensuring public safety because that's what the freedom of having guns is limiting.
4)I do not agree with the logic of Wayne LaPierre's response to the Newtown tragedy because it came off as completely insensitive. Over twenty people with the majority of them being children had just been shot and he was still promoting the use of guns. I believe that decreasing the access to the type of military grade automatic weapon used in the school shooting is the answer to the problem of gun violence at schools.
5) I think that the writers of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment were just trying to guarantee that Americans had the right to protect themselves. In this case intention doesn't matter because they aren't here anymore, I don't believe they were thinking of the future when writing the amendment. They didn't realize that guns would become so advanced.
1. The NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation because of their political connections they have in congress and also because of the power they have of so many loyal people backing the association. Many lobbyist are in favor of the NRA. The NRA also has an amendment to back their arguments.
2. If i were a Senator i would have voted for the proposed bill by Senator Manchin. I do think that it would depend on what my voters think as well because they should believe in the things i believe in. I agree that something has to be done about gun violence in America. I believe that there should be extreme background checks for people buying guns.
3. In my opinion on the gun control debate, i believe that guns should only be owned by responsible Americans. I believe that it is more of ensuring public safety of American citizens, because many of the people that protect Americans have to use and own guns to do their jobs.
4. I do agree with the logic of Wayne LaPierre's response to the Newtown tragedy, in that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun" although he could have been more sympathetic to the tragedy he is 100% correct. Yes, providing a better armed security system can greatly increase the chances of the gunman being stopped before getting into the school.
5. I do not think that the writer's of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment anticipated it would protect people's right to own semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines because the type of guns available now are completely different from in the past. The intention of the 2nd amendment is for American citizens to have the right to own guns; However intention does matter because there are good and bad Americans and they might abuse the right to own guns.
1.) The NRA is successful in stopping gun control because they are well equipped with resources, which they can use to their full advantage making them very feared in Washington. They know how to lobby because people who are against gun control feel very passionately about their second amendment right, so many gravitate to the same position the NRA holds. The NRA can then lobby the voters to vote the way they want them to.
2.)I would have voted for Senator Manchin’s bill. I wouldn't care what the voters think, something needs to be done – 26 people were killed at an elementary school because of a lack of gun control. Extensive background checks should be performed. If there is evidence of mental illness or a violent history, they should not be issued a gun for the safety of society.
3.) I think the gun control debate in the United States is more about people wanting their freedom, although it needs to be about public safety. I think the situation is comparable to a parent telling their child not to do something. This results in the child wanting to do the behavior even more. I think if Americans are told they can’t have guns, they’ll want the guns that much more and will do whatever they can to gain access to them. But, the issue needs to be about public safety. Innocent people like the Newtown victims, Gabrielle Giffords, and the Columbine victims should not have ever been harmed or been put in the way of harm.
4.) I do not agree with Wayne LaPierre's response to the Newtown tragedy, i think people should have a right to use guns but only for their own safety not to kill innocent people but in this case with what waynes response was, people should not fight fire with fire its only going to make things worse and unsafer for people. I think the solution to gun violence at schools is a combination of better protection at the school and decreasing access to military grade automatic weapons. They’re military grade for a reason. Regular civilians don’t need access to them.
5.)I don't believe the writer's of the constitution thought the 2nd amendment would be interpreted in this way. They were focusing on the present issues. I believe the intention of the 2nd amendment was that people could gather and bear arms when their national security was being threatened.But, I do believe intention doesn't matter anymore. People do what ever they want even if it involves consequences.
1) One reason why the NRA is so successful in stopping gun control legislation is because of the amount of devoted followers they have. Therefore, they may having massive advantages when opposing gun laws.
The second reason is because of how many resources they have. They also support the 2nd amendment, which is another reason why the NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation.
2)If I was a senator, I would have voted for Senator Manchin. I wouldn't really account for what the voters think.Background checks should be done in order to secure optimal safety. Although background checks seem reasonable, I still believe it may not be the best solution.
3)I believe that the gun control debate is about ensuring our fundamental freedoms as American citizens. Telling people they can't have this and that gun won't stop them from trying to get it; instead, it only influences them to try harder.
4) I personally do not agree with the logic of wayne LaPierre 's response because the only way that this society will flourish is if we fight evil with good, nothing else. I also believe that it requires both providing better security and decreasing access to automatic weapons used during the shooting. This will indirectly promote good to fight with evil.
5) I do not believe that the writers of the constitution anticipated the rapid evolution of guns because it wasn't seen as something ordinary. I think that the intention of the 2nd amendment doesn't even matter because of all the violence that is occurring. I believe that if they knew what was going to be in the future, then they would represent the 2nd amendment in a different manner.
1. One reason why the NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation is because the constitution and the second amendment back up their beliefs and powers. According to the second amendment, stopping gun control legislation is still constitutional, so they legally don’t have to enforce gun control legislation. Another reason is because the NRA has a lot of members. Because of this, they will have a lot people to vote alongside of them, a lot of organization, and the ability to raise a large amount of money.
2. If I was a Senator, I would have voted for the Senate bill proposed by Manchin. No, it wouldn’t depend on what my voters think. I feel strongly enough about my opinion that I wouldn’t change it just to get more votes. My opinion is that something needs to be done about gun violence in America, and I believe that the best way of going about this is to have extensive background checks. Along with the background checks, it should be required that you take training classes and have a proof of training in order to be able to own a gun.
3. My opinion about the gun control debate in the United States is that it needs to be much more complicated for bad/harmful people to get ahold of guns. I used the phrase “much more complicated” because if they really want a gun, they will find illegal ways to get it. But that process needs to be made much harder than it already is. I also believe that extensive background checks and training should be mandatory in order to own a gun. Ensuring public safety is more important than ensuring our fundamental freedoms as American citizens because both times and people change. Circumstances have changed since the second amendment and the constitution were written, and I don’t think that should get in the way of public safety.
4. I do not agree with the logic of Wayne LaPierre's response to the Newtown tragedy, in that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". Just like fire shouldn’t be fought with fire, guns shouldn’t be fought with more guns. I think that more guns would just add to the problem of gun violence in America. I believe that decreasing access to the type of military grade automatic weapons used in the shooting is the appropriate answer to this problem. This would save a lot of money because if you were to provide armed security at vulnerable places, the government would have to pay all of the workers necessary for this.
5. No, I do not think that the writers of the constitution and the second amendment anticipated it would protect people’s rights to own semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. I believe that the intention of the second amendment was to protect the people’s rights to the ability to bear arms in order to protect themselves, provide food for their families, and hunt for fun, rather than to have bad intentions with the weapons.
1. The NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation because they have a lot of members and have the second amendment to back them up. With many members, they have a lot of votes and are effective in raising money. The second amendment saying that we have the right to bear arms also back what they say. People do not want to lose their freedoms and the right to bear arms is one of those freedoms.
2. I would vote that people should have background checks before obtaining a gun. Although the black market is still very much alive and there will still be ways to get a gun, it would make it more difficult. This does not depend on everyone else. I ought to stand up for what I think is best for the people. Although something should be done about gun violence, I would not wish for anything to be done that would undermine our rights. It is a downward spiral when a freedom is taken away.
3. I think this is about the fundamental freedoms as American Citizens. Our right to bear arms should be protected. If the government can take away one of our rights, what is stopping them from taking away another and another after that? Guns keep people safe. Guns do not kill people. People kill people.
4. I agree. Bad guys will get a hold of guns and the only way to stop a killer would be to also have a gun to take him down. Decreasing weaponry will do nothing but make it more difficult for the good guys to get guns. Bad people do not care about the law and taking away security from those who may need it and will not abuse it is not the answer.
5. I do not think they anticipated this. They intended to give Americans a way to protect themselves and hunt. There would be no way to see how technology would advance and what sort of guns would end up being available. However, it does not matter what their intention was. We have the weapons available and this amendment protects our right to have them.
1) the two reasons the NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation is because they have so many supporters and that the NRA is tied to the 2nd amendment. After the Columbine highschool shooting, Clinton wanted all these rules and legislation to be put on guns. The NRA thought this was going to jeopardized the freedom they had.
2) I would have voted for the bill proposed by Senator Manchin. It wouldn't matter what the voters/constituents think. I agree that something has to done about the gun violence in America. Anyone can get a gun anywhere. It can be found in our homes, it can be bought in gun stores, sold illegally on the black market. And its a no-brainer what guns are used for. So doing "something" can help control the violence that are caused by guns.
3) I think the gun control debate seems to be about the freedom of the citizens rather than ensuring public safety. You here stories on the news about deaths caused by guns and massive shootings where many victims lay dead, and yet when Clinton and sentaor Manchin starts making rules and laws to regulate gun control after the Columbine shootings, the NRA gets mad because its taking away their freedom.
4) In some way, I agree and disagree with LaPierre's response to the Newton tragedy. I agree with taking out the bad guy is by having a hero to save the day, but I also think that killing someone is harsh and cruel, even if you are the "good guy", you shouldn't be the one to end someone's life. I think the solution to the problem of gun violence is to provide better security and the decreasing access to military weapons. Even though decreasing the access to military weapons will be hard since there are people who sell these guns illegally, we can increase the security at schools.
5) I think the intention of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the right to protect themselves. Back then the only thing to protect themselves was a gun, a stick, or their hands. As America progressed, I think people began to view the second amendment differently.
1. The NRA is so successful because it has enormous funding to do with as needed and very passionate people make up the membership. The NRA spent almost $3 million in 2012 for lobbying alone.(publicintegrity.org) Also, the success of the NRA is widely contributed to by the many members who believe that their expression of the second amendment is one of the purest forms of American democracy able to be performed.
2. I would have voted for the bill because it seems like common sense that a person should be verified if they are sane and do not have any previous problems with violence. I understand this may be limiting to the second amendment, but in order to appease both gun activists and anti-gun lobbyists, this would help move legislation in the right direction. My vote would be a representation of my voters, but they voted for me because of our similar ideals. Of course something must be done in order to limit the ability for a person to harm others, but a person’s rights should not and will not be taken away from them. Certain limitations like back ground checks or higher taxes make gun purchases harder, but if a person wants one, they’ll get one.
3. I believe all people should have a choice. However, no one should worry that when they drop their children off at school, they will never see them again. Guns are tools used for hunting and safety from real threats. It is not the guns that are damaging, but the way people who use these tools that determines the true danger. I am more concerned that no one has any right taken from them because if one right is limited or removed, it makes taking another right away much easier.
4. I absolutely do not agree with that statement. My family owns guns ranging from 6-round WWII revolvers to long range rifles yet we all are pacifists. Some ask why we own guns if we do not believe in violence as a means to solve conflict, but it is simply for personal enjoyment to watch each other improve accuracy and to participate in a world of complicated jargon meant only for the satisfaction of our fellow gun-owning peers. However, I do not believe regular citizens not partaking in military ventures need access to fully automatic long/short range weapons. Unless these are kept at a range and rented for short periods to use on the range grounds, there is not need for them. Better security does make harming others more difficult, but creating the funds to support these types of protection is not easy.
5. I believe the authors of the second amendment could never have predicted the evolvement of guns not could they have predicted the malicious ways humans can harm others with these tools. However, a person’s right to protect themselves is what they aimed to authenticate and still today should be supported.
1.The NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation is because of the fact they used the statement that the gun is the symbol for freedom. By using this statement they are gaining more and more supporters, because everyone is going to want that freedom.
2. I would have voted for the senate bill to be proposed by Manchin , because expanding background checks on people that purchase guns could do no harm. But make our situation in America about gun control better. With this bill guns will not get into the wrong hands of people that don’t need them such as people with a mental illness.
3. My opinion on the gun control debate in the United States is more about ensuring public safety. Because the more freedom we have with guns the more gun shootings there will be and the less gun control we will have over the people using them
4. I do not agree with LaPierre's logic , I feel that there are many more things you cam do to prevent a bad guy with a gun rather than ringing another gun into the situation . I feel that doing this will not help the situation at all , but only make it worse.
5. No I don’t think that the writer of the constitution and it 2nd amendment anticipated it would protect people’s right to own semi-automatic weapons. I think the intention of the amendment was to be used as protection when needed. When they made this amendment it wasn't pertaining to the generation now where weapons are being in drastic situations.
1. The NRA states that it would be completely unconstitutional if guns were outlawed. (For example: “The gun is the symbol of freedom.”) Also, they believe hunters should be able to keep guns.
2. I would have voted for the bill proposed because I think the bill tried to compromise with democrats and republicans by not abolishing guns, but by putting restrictions on them. I think something does need to be done because gun violence is a huge issue in the U.S. In England, guns are not an issue because they aren't in society. The U.S. would not be able to abolish guns because of the hardcore republicans fighting for the second amendment and the fact that there are so many guns in circulation. However, I believe the nation should restrict guns by means of background checks and outlawing certain guns (automatic, semi-automatic). I think I would vote for it no matter what my constituents believed in because I feel that safely in society should be a top priority.
3. I think the most important thing on the agenda should always be the safety of society as a whole. I think guns should be limited a lot more and I believe automatic and semi-automatic guns should be banned because no one needs to hunt with those types of guns and the only reason they are used is to commit mass murder.
4. The NRA said the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, stating that armed guards should be at schools. I think it is completely irrational because, in my opinion, putting more guns near children will not make anything safer.
5. I think the writers of the Constitution did anticipate that the second amendment would protect people’s rights because, back when the Constitution was written, it was normal to own a gun and carry it everywhere. And, there was also a big debate on the power of the Federal government; so, people felt that having guns would help them to protect their lives and property from search or seizure. However, the guns back then were nothing like the semi-automatic and automatic guns we have today. I think intention does matter and I think our founding fathers would feel differently about the gun policy if they saw how society was today.
1. The NRA demonstrates democracy very well like stated in the video. They are successful at stopping gun control legislation because there are so many people apart of it and also they are very persistent in what they want.
2. I would've voted for Senator Manchin's Bill. I wouldn't let what the voters thought affect my decision regardless of what would happen because of it. Something has to happen, which the extensive background checks could be done to somewhat prevent these incidents from reoccurring.
3. I believe the gun control debate will forever go on. For the people that don't want gun control it's about their freedom but personally I think it should be about public safety.
4. I didn't agree with LaPierre's logic at all. At this time 20 kids were murdered and the last thing their parents wanted to hear was that the solution was "a good guy with a gun". I think the answer is limiting access to these military weapons.
5. I don't think the writers of the Constituon and 2nd Amendment anticipated it would protect people's rights to use semi automatic weapons. I don't think the intention of the 2nd amendment matters because these events already took place.
1. One reason the NRA is successful is because they use the second amendment, "right to bear arms". This gives them the right to be able to obtain guns. Another reason is that if the government tries to enact more limitations, the NRA is afraid not only that it is against their lawful right, but that the gun control legislation will keep going and won't stop.
2. I would have voted for the bill because it provides extensive background checks, but at the same time I do not think it would interfere with the second amendment. I would take in consideration from the voters, but at the same I would end up doing what I think is right. Something should be done, such as background checks at gun shows and mental health checks because of the pattern of shooters being diagnosed as mentally ill.
3. I think there should be some gun control because of the countless shootings that have occurred recently. I think it is more important ensuring safety because people's lives are at stake. However, I think that people still have the right to obtain a gun, as long as they prove to pass the background checks.
4. No, I do not agree with the belief that "the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun". There can still be some casualties involved and would not completely solve the problem. There can be a stronger security, but it should not be to the point where everyone has to have a gun in order to feel protected. I do not think it is that necessary for everyone to have a military automatic weapon that poses as a larger threat for potential victims.
5. No, I do not think that the writers of the constitution anticipated owning semi-automatic weapons. Weapons in those days were not nearly as developed as the advancement we have today, such an advancement that they probably not even think to be invented. The main intention of the second amendment was so that the citizens would be able to protect themselves first-hand. I don't think intentions matter that much in this case just because of how much the country has advanced since then and it has to be looked at differently to fit the current state of the country.
1) The NRA is successful at stopping gun control legislation, because their rights are protected in the amendments, they are well aware on how to argue that case, and make use of their abundant resources. They also have a huge group of supporters.
2) I would have voted for the bill, because something needs to be done. It should be harder to get hold of a gun, and they need to be more careful and serious when it comes to allowing citizens to posses such weapons. Especially in the wake of these tragic incidents, that involved the deaths of innocent lives, because of some idiot with a weapon. Something has to be done about gun violence in America.
3) I think the debate in gun control in the United States is about fundamental freedom. Yes, it does provide protection for many citizens, who properly use/own them. But a lot of people want guns just to have them, just because. Guns are very dangerous weapons, i don't think that's something that "anyone" should be able to have, Just because.
4) I don't agree with Wayne's statement. Violence has never stopped violence, it just leads to more violence. I think the only way to stop bad guys with guns, is to not give those bag guys guns. They shouldn't need to have armed security at elementary schools, that's a place of innocence, why would you want a gun around children. They need to definitely decrease access to military weapons, why on Earth do everyday citizens need atomic weapons, what the heck are you doing. There is no job, other than being a soldier in war that requires you to have weapons like that, so why is it allowed.
5) I think the writer of the second amendment was focused on ensuring Americans the right to protect themselves. I'm sure it wasn't predicted, that it would become this sort of issue.
1. The NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation. One reason is they have several supporters and great communication with their supporters. The NRA sent emails to their supporters warning them of Senator Manchin and his plans. As a result, Senator Manchin was unable to reach the NRA supporters and have gun control. The NRA sends emails and mails to their supporters, as well as calling them. They are able to reach their supporters and spread their ideas and plans, which makes them a strong force. Another reason is the NRA has several funds and a lot of money. They use the money to fund campaigns to promote or go against politicians. They are able to persuade the public with these ads and campaigns to do what they want. If a politician doesn’t support guns, then the NRA funds ads that are against the politician.
2. I would have voted for Manchin’s Senate bill. I think they need to put a stop to gun violence and do something about it. I don’t think it should depend on the thoughts of voters even if I do lose supporters in agreeing with this idea. I think it should be my decision and I should do what I think is right. I do think that something needs to be done about gun violence in order to prevent meaningless deaths. I think people should have the freedom to own guns. However, they should subject to a background check and there should be a limit on gun use. Some people have arrest records or mental illnesses and they should not be allowed a gun. For this reason, there should be background checks.
3. I think that there should be a debate on gun control. It is an important issue in our society, and there have been several incidents with gun violence. I think that it should be more about ensuring public safety because people’s lives are more important than a fundamental freedom. I think that people should be allowed guns but there should be background checks. I don’t think anyone should be able to buy a gun. There should be limits on gun use and the purchasing of guns in order to ensure public safety.
4. I agree and disagree with LaPierre’s response to the tragedy. I think that good people, like police officers and normal people without a record, should have guns to protect themselves and others from bad people. I also think that we shouldn’t answer violence with more violence. I think that more guns will lead to more deaths and tragedies. It will eventually lead to war between the two sides. I think there should be more security at schools in order to ensure the safety of students and faculty. Anyone can go on school campus so schools need more security. I also think that there should be a decrease in the access of weapons. It will ensure the safety of others and prevent people with records or mental issues from accessing guns.
5. I don’t think that it was anticipated that the second amendment would protect people’s right to own guns and magazines. I think the intention was to protect people’s liberties and freedoms. This amendment was created after the war with Britain and the Declaration of Independence. The writers wanted to do everything in their power to protect the rights of the people because these rights had been abused for so long. They didn’t anticipate that guns would be used for unnecessary violence that put others in danger. Also, they didn’t anticipate terrorists like ISIS and Al Qaeda.
1. In recent times the NRA's influence is overblown. Conservatives (Democrats are not free from blame either) can be so incredibly stubborn and vote down any legislation just to spite Obama. The NRA influenced them but they also tend to disagree with Liberals on almost every issue.
2. I agree with the bill, but if I were in the Senate I would feel a sense of obligation to my voters. The bill was a good attempt at reaching a compromise but unfortunately that seems impossible. More steps should be taken to curb gun violence in America but this was a good place to start.
3. It seems adherence to the constitution is endangering the lives of Americans which is sickening. A gun is not a fundamental human right, but life is.
4. I have to agree with the logic of this insensitive statement. If someone is willing to shoot young children then they will not be stopped by restricted gun access, so it is reasonable that the only thing that can truly stop them is someone else with a gun. That being said, restricted gun access won't stop these attacks but they will greatly decrease the severity, so I believe the answer is a mixture of the two proposed solutions
5. I think even if the writers of the constitution knew that guns of the future would be different they couldn't have imagined exactly how powerful they'd get. I believe the intention of the 2nd amendment is to allow the citizens to rise up against a corrupt government, but when people are dying everyday over gun violence then something must be done.
1) The NRA is successful in stopping gun control because they have so much control. They scare people to the point when they can't say no or back down. They are willing to do what it takes to make sure people are safe and they have people on their side.
2) I would have voted for the bill because something would at least be getting done. People are still getting hurt and their needs to be an end to this.
3) I think it's mostly about freedom. People want guns to stand out and to not "feel harmed," but then they end up harming others and not knowing how to use them the right way.
4) I don't agree with his logic because that is completely missing the point because more people are going to get hurt and it's going to cause multiple problems. I think they need more security at schools because most students don't feel safe in a place where they spend most of their lives.
5) I think the writers of the second amendment were guaranteeing Americans to feel safe wherever they are. I think they had the right intentions but now everyone feels the need to make their own interpretation and go along with it.
1. One reason the NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation is because they have the support of conservatives. Republicans assist in funding the NRA which allows them to continually fight gun control laws. The NRA is also successful due to its good leaders. The NRA's president and executives successfully gain a large number of votes year after year. Combined with well spoken speeches, their influence is vital in the NRA's success.
2. I would most likely vote how I believe despite what my people wanted. I feel as though if I were to be a senator, they would already know my position on such views and them voting me into office means they want me to execute my own beliefs. I would vote for the bill because I think more restrictions and limitations could be set. I don't think any person needs a machine gun and large quantities of ammo should be suspect.
3. I think it should be more about ensuring public safety but that it has become more about ensuring our fundamental freedoms. I think there are benefits to everyone having a gun and nobody having a gun. However, when there are some people with guns and some people without, the people without guns will always fall victim to the people with guns. I then think it is reasonable of the people without guns to request limitation on those with guns.
4. Yes, yes, and yes. I believe that there should be more guns at school. A school police officer and elected teacher(s) should all be able to posses a firearm. Reducing access to military weapons would also assist in public safety.
5. No. I don't think they could of ever anticipated technological advances to go where they did. However, their intent should matter. Just as we have changed amendments in response to changes in society in the past, the change in the interpretation of "bearing arms" should be changed to pistols and muskets.
1. One aspect of the NRA that has contributed to its success is its appeal to conservative Republicans, which makes a significant political impact in Congress. The Republicans in D.C. are interested in protecting and embracing Amendment 2. The second reason would be the fact that the NRA persistently leads the pro-gun rights group, meaning they make up the most prominent voices in D.C. Conversely, pro-gun control advocates are less unified. As both the President and gun control advocacy groups support slightly different gun control ideals.
2. I would have voted for Senator Manchin's bill. However. it would depend on what the voters think, as it is my responsibility to represent their desires in policymaking. Some action must be taken concerning violence in America. Too many lives have perished. Stricter laws including background checks and other checkpoints should be enacted.
3. I believe that stricter gun control is needed, and the 2nd Amendment is slightly outdated. Rights are not as important as protecting lives. As guns have become increasingly more automated, efficient and deadly, it is important to recognize this and attempt to protect lives by enforcing stricter laws on ownership and maintenance.
4. I do not agree with LaPierre's response. The NRA's reaction was inappropriate. Both an increase in security and a decrease in access to military grade weapons must be part of the agenda in order to accomplish increased safety.
5. The writers of the Constitution and the Second Amendment probably did not anticipate that it would protect people's right to such aggressive and destructive weapons, such as the ones developed in the 21st century. The intention of the Second Amendment is to allow citizens the right to own guns an prevent the government from infringing on that right.
1) The NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation because they are very organized and know what to say when reaching out to their members asking them to use their voices and calling and emailing he capital to stop a law for gun control to be passed. The NRA also has the basic fact that gun control is unconstitutional, since it goes against the second amendment.
2)If i was a Senator i would vote for Manchin's bill. Even if the voters i represent didn't want any gun control, i would still try to show them and persuade them to thinking how Manchin's bill was a good choice because it was a compromise. Something definitely has to be done because too many people are dying from guns. I understand some people are in the military and hunt, so their occupation demands guns but automatic and semi-automatic guns shouldn't be in the hands of people with mental disorders and have a criminal record. Background checks should be practiced and the federal agents need to start cracking down on illegal sales of guns to minors and unqualified people. I don't think guns should be outlawed, only because there are physically too many in circulation and the amount of money to buy back all those guns would be too large.
3)The gun control debate is about peoples pride. I understand why hunters gun control, but we need to get guns out of the hands of people who harm others. Most people are against gun control because it is a fundamental freedom, they have too much pride and don't want anything taken away from them, when actuality they are just making it harder to get guns, not taken guns away. They don't take into account all the people who, undeservingly, died from guns.
4) I do not agree Wayne LaPierre's logic during the
Newtown tragedy because if we put even more guns in circulation that will just make their problem escalade. You don't even know if every person is good that's the start of the problem. Taking guns out of their hands will be a better solution.
5)The writers of the constitution could have never predicted that technology would advance as fast as it is in our day and age. Back then the only had simpler weapons, not all the complicated military grade weapons used in mass shootings. They intended only to allow people the opportunity for people to protect themselves because the british wouldn't let them so they weren't protected when the indians attacked them. their intentions now does matter because crime rates have gone up and more people are included to kill members of their community now.
1)The NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation because they have the a group of followers who are ready to fight if someone take an advantage of this law. And also another reason NRA is successful is because it supports the 2nd amendment.
2) I agree with Senator Manchin's bill. I would not really go with what my voters like but rather what is right for the people. Yes something has to be done about this because a lot of people are getting killed due to guns. So maybe have them go through a full background check before they by a gun.
3) The gun control debate is more about the fundamental rights of the people. The more you tell someone no the harder they try to get it. Its the way humans work.
4) I completely disagree with LaPierre's logic. Personally I feel like its a very dumb idea. If you put a good guy with a gun vs a bad guy with gun. The bad guy will do all in his power to get around in and do his job. He wont hesitate in doing even worse damage. You cant fight things like guns. You stop them before they happen but you cant fight hem.
5)I think that the writer's of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment did this in a way to help the people so that they can have a weapon to protect themselves. But I believe that this was the max they thought of this. They never imagined there would be a world where people would start using guns for any other wrong reason.
1. Two reasons that the NRA is successful at stopping gun control legislation is because they are good at rallying people and making money. With rallying people, the NRA makes it seem like people’s rights are being infringed upon, which further incites people to want to take action. Once events like Columbine happened, people felt the need to protect themselves and go out and buy exuberant amounts of weapons before strict laws were imposed. Concerning their ability to make money, the more supporters you have donating to your cause, the more power and influence you have in the world of politics. The NRA has demonstrated their ability to fend for themselves as far as money goes.
2. I would vote for the Manchin bill because the extent of the bill was to close a loop hole and nothing more. Despite what my voters wanted (and running the risk of re-election), it’s such a small measure that could be done in the grand scheme of things. Something should be done about gun control such as extensive background checks (at stores AND gun shows), a limit on what weapons can be made accessible to the general public, a limit on who’s allowed to sell weapons (limit for stores and gun shows), age limits for certain weapons, permits, and extensive classes that should be taken.
3. I believe it is more about ensuring our fundamental freedoms as American citizens, but it should be about ensuring public safety .Although there are limits to your rights, that doesn’t mean that you don’t have the right at all. Limitations and restrictions are put in place to preserve order, keep the peace, and as a preventative measure. If there were limits on the 2nd amendment, tragedies such as Columbine or New Town could have been avoided, or the amount of damage that was inflicted could have been decreased.
4. In theory, I can understand and agree with what he’s saying, but I believe that the better solution would be to decrease the access to military grade weapons that are used in school shootings. It’s a lot easier to prevent the amount of damage and subdue someone who has a hand gun, versus someone with an AK-47. If people such as Adam Lanza hadn’t had access to military grade weapons, 26 people, 20 of them being children, wouldn’t have died, despite having armed school security or even arming the teachers with weapons.
5. I don’t think that the writers of the Constitution anticipated the accessibility and the ease with which it takes to purchase semi-automatics and high capacity magazines. I believe the intention was to protect one’s own property when institutions and laws, like the ones we have now, weren’t in place to protect those kinds of rights. But, our job (or at least the job of the SC) is to interpret the law for what we need today in this day and age, not attempt to interpret and apply something that was written in the 18th century.
1. The NRA take advantage of the fact that there is an amendment in the Constitution that gives American citizens the "right to bear arms". Also, it has many supporters who are driven by American ideals of freedom and nationalism.
2. I would have voted for the bill because the purpose of it was to simply close a loophole. It would not depend on what my voters think because one must strive for the betterment of their country over personal gains. I think that background checks should be done and military-grade guns should be outlawed.
3. I think that the gun control debate is too focused on securing freedoms while it should be focused on ensuring the safety of the public. The NRA has a very aggressive, nationalistic stance and it draws all the people who romanticize old American ideals.
4. If "bad guys" want to obtain guns, they will find a way to do so, therefore I do think that it smart to have better, armed security but decreasing access to automatic weapons should be done as well.
5. I do not believe the writers anticipated this and I believe intention does matter. If something is causing a problem it should be dealt with despite what was written in a constitution hundreds of years ago.
1.One of the reasons why the NRA is successful in stopping gun control is because of how they resolved the problem, they reach out nationwide. They emphasize the 2nd amendment, the freedom to bear arms. They have many rich supporters that can give them the resources that they need.
2. I feel like the gun control with lay out the society, coming to peace and not worrying about threats. Although prohibiting guns may cause people to feel restricted and powerless. I believe that there should be something done with the gun violence, perhaps someone with certified license for a certain age.
3.I think the debate over gun control in the U.S is over freedom and the concerns for safety. I think guns should be limited and only licensed to certain people that fit requirements, requirements that include background checks. Taking all the guns away would cause the society to protest and cause even more violence because their freedoms are taken away.
4.I don’t agree with LaPierre’s logic because that’s just more violence, but i feel like guns aren’t the main reasons, it’s the person behind the gun. “ guns don’t kill, people do” .
5.I think that the writers of the 2nd amendment felt that Americans would feel safer, having a weapon to protect themselves. I believe that they would of never imagined this being a conflict over gn because many people have access to getting guns now compared to modern days.
1.) The NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation because it is a very powerful organization containing a very large network of supporters and followers. Combined with this, the NRA does a very good job in attaching itself onto the second amendment and making it seem as if it is unjust or a violation of freedom to not be allowed to bear arms for protection.
2.) I would have voted in favor of the bill proposed by Senator Manchin. Being smarter about distributing guns to citizens is a must though. Very strict background checks are a must. Anyone with even the slightest flaw in their background check should not be allowed to purchase or own a gun. Concerning this issue, this is something that takes charge of someone's emotions, where everyone has to have to a certain degree a very powerful feeling towards guns. So, allowing my voters to influence my decision wouldn't be too likely and if i did make a decision in favor of their wanting, it would be a coincidence. Absolutely, i believe something has to be done about guns in America, but with today's laws and the NRA being existent, it is hard to really do anything. There seems to be a way of sugarcoating the 2nd amendment and the concept of self defense after a tragic shooting or traumatic event involving guns which the NRA takes serious advantage of.
3.) My opinion on gun control in the U.S is that it revolves around the concept of protecting our freedoms, but there are always going to be those people that commit murder or crimes with guns, which is why guns laws should be centered around public safety.
4.) Yes, i agree with LaPierre's statement because the only way these "bad guys" with guns are gonna be taken care of is by "good guys" with guns. These bad guys with guns are only gonna go on to create more problems and take more lives, commit more crimes, etc., where the only thing that is really gonna solve this issue is with good guys having access to guns. That is it. Definitely decreasing access to automatic weapons is the better solution. Semi-automatic weapons are more than enough to provide self defense and allowing the wrong individuals to get their hands on these automatic weapons is just multiple disasters waiting to happen.
5.) I do not believe the writers of the second amendment anticipated that this would allow for individuals to own and have to right to own automatic weapons. Semi-automatic yes, high-capacity magazines no. There just is not a need for guns to have 30 plus rounds in a magazine or at least not accessible to the public. I think the intentions of the 2nd amendment were to allow for individuals to own a simple pistol for self defense. I don't think the writers thought it through that people are going to pop up all over the place, committing murder and crime.
1. The NRA is successful in stopping gun control because they use the term “democracy” in a well-played manner. They know how to entice people using the word “freedom” with the association of guns. In the video one man commented “A gun a symbol of freedom”. The NRA also has several networks and resources that’ll make them successful.
2. If I was a senator, I would have voted for the bill because it puts a restriction on gun control. I really wouldn’t care what my constituents think because with a shooting incident like the Sandy Hook and Columbine, something needs to be done. Gun control has gotten out of hand and it wouldn’t matter if guns were handed to good or bad people, some people out in the world are using guns for the wrong reasons and without a background check to purchase a gun puts a lot of people in danger.
3. The whole gist of the debate about gun control is people think that there freedom will be abdicated if a law pass about gun control. People is more worried about freedom than gun control and I think that is a problem in the democracy system. Politicians should enforce some type of gun safety to ensure public safety.
4. I absolutely do not agree with Wayne LaPierre’s response, yes it may be well thought out but it doesn’t solve anything to ensure gun safety. His response showed no sympathy to the situation and he’s basically using a euphemism to promote guns. Also, his response displayed that the NRA doesn’t want to change any gun laws to foster gun safety. His solution to the problem by advocating armed security at public schools does not solve the issue. The act of violence is not necessary, if the NRA will enforce laws to enforce public safety.
5. The intention of the 2nd amendment is to provide guns to people to self-defend themselves in any harm or danger. No, I don’t think it was the writer’s intention to let people have military-type guns. They wanted people to feel safe in their own household from any danger that may be upon them.
1. The reasons why the NRA has been so successful at stopping gun control is the strong membership that it has established, and its strong appeals with the Republican Party. I say this because in the video it talked about after the Columbine shooting there was a large increase in the purchase of guns and membership to the NRA in reaction to “stricter gun control”. Also it is not a well-known secret the most Republicans are indeed gun rights supporters so due to this ideals influence in the party the NRA can use this to subvert the policy into their favor.
2. Yes I would have agreed with Senator Manchin’s bill because yes I do believe that something has to be done so people stop getting hurt, and I believe that what Manchin proposed was a good plan and not too affecting on most gun owner’s, by just increasing background checks and another thing that I believe would be better is if gun shops would coordinate with the police so that gun shops don’t sell guns to gang members because that kills more than all of the media forecasted shooting combined.
3. I believe yes there should be some form of increased methodology for the background checks but I don’t think that they should just ban guns because their dangerous (and I Have talked to a lot of liberals i.e. Marissa and this is their main opposition to it.) Because guns themselves it is the person that is holding it is the one that is dangerous.
4. Yes I agree with the logic of his response but one I think it was wrongly timed and two why yes I agree with the solution is a good guy with a gun but I also agree with the decreasing of certain military grade automatic weapons because these shooting did involve military grade weapons why yes they are hard to get a hold of, they are still available and I think that why you don’t have we get rid of all of them, we do have to limit their accessibility to the general public specifically child because it was children who were responsible for the columbine shooting so I believe that if we lessen the amount it would greatly decrease the number of terrible shooting like this.
5. I believe that it doesn’t matter on the type of gun or its uses the intention of the writers of the constitution were far more preoccupied with insuring that if the lives of the united states citizens lives were in peril that the citizens could have the ability to defend themselves no matter if it is a Kentucky long rifle or an AR-15, they both get the job done as far they were concerned in my opinion.
1.) Two reasons the NRA is successful in stopping gun control legislation is because they say that the government is taking their constitutional right of “the right to bear arms” also because of the voters who are highly against the passage of gun control legislation. The NRA has become a powerful organization and the people who stand behind the NRA and its ideals have allowed this organization to be one the is feared among many people and especially the government.
2.) If I was a senator I would have definitely voted for the bill proposed by Senator Manchin, I think gun control is a very prominent issue in our society that needs to be reformed therefore I agree that something must be done about gun violence in America. I think having background checks on people who are buying guns should be done in order to decrease the amount of people who have criminal backgrounds from getting guns although this won’t prevent all crisis from happening it will definitely decrease incidents involving guns.
3.) I believe that the gun control debate in America is more about ensuring our fundamental freedoms, those who oppose the passing of gun control legislation are way more concerned with the fact that if the law was to be passed it would take away the rights of the second amendment and for some reason this amendment seems to be a more important factor rather than ensuring public safety.
4.) I don’t agree with Wayne LaPierre’s statement to the Newtown tragedy, I don’t think a “good guy” as a common citizen should have the authority to stop a bad guy with a gun the only people who should have the authority to do so should be the police, military, and other trained professionals. Decreasing access to the type of military grade automatic weapons is the solution to the gun violence issue in schools, as I mentioned before having background checks and managing what types of weapons you sell to the public are huge factors in reducing this issue across America.
5.) I don’t think that the writers of the constitution anticipated that the second amendment would protect people’s rights to own weapons, at the time the second amendment was proposed as protection for people against those that were trying to harm them not for the events of what have occurred in today society.
1.) The NRA proves to be one of the most successful groups in stopping and propelling legislation. the NRA are willing to fight against all events and make rebuttals for any situation that jeopardizes the second amendment right and its freedom. Their following is borderline religious and is strong in the political arena.
2.) I would be in favor of Manchin's Bill. I believe that the second amendment right should be protected, but that restrictions must be put on the necessity of firearms in America. With schoolchildren, high school students and political figures being murdered, I believe that there needs to be a change in policy regarding background checks and a more accurate track of the gun's position and timeline. The loophole of the gun shows must be adequately put at ease.
3.) I believe that individuals deserve the right to own a weapon, in fact I believe that people should be allowed to carry strong weapons for their own interests or for sporting and hunting. I am strongly against the need for assault rifles and military grade equipment, but seeing as that is already illegal, my only concern is for the suppression of powerful firearms to be sold without an intensive background check. I think that the tracking of these guns and the loophole of the gun shows must be put to rest. Laws should be enforced and the safety of the citizens must come first.
4.) I don't find the logic in his statement, I think that a tragedy is not something that requires more tragedy to occur within it. Fighting fire with fire is not necessarily good in a situation with so many unarmed and innocent people. Lapierre wants to show that guns can be used to defend, but in this situation of academia it appears to seem almost comical to create some western style showdown between assailants and teachers. Security is a necessity but arming teachers may not be the best idea.
5.) The writers of the constitution could not have fathomed the evolution of firearms in this era and the caliber and capacity they truly have to kill another person. Muskets are not in comparison with the killing power of an AR-15. They wanted people to realize that they could literally defend themselves against the instability of the government. I believe that now it is more symbolic than literal. Something that represents American freedom.
Post a Comment