Tuesday, October 14, 2008

The Second Amendment Debate


Okay, kiddies. Jake and Usamah are hosting the Second Amendment debate this Thursday, so you'd all best respond to this post on the blog. (By the way, I'm going to make sure that Ned bans all the students who don't post.) 
Here are your three articles. Read at least one, choose a side, post it in the comments. 

Under the Constitution, Americans should have the right to bear arms for private use, not only for militant use.

The National Rifle Association (recommended): LINK

The Washington Times: LINK

Rocque for  Congress: LINK

For lazy people, we also have the Wikipedia Article HERE.

REMEMBER. IN THE COMMENTS. 

Murphs

14 comments:

Unknown said...

i figured i would start things off with the first comment so here it goes. i personaly believe that handguns only serve to kill people.; that was why they were invented. now i know that there are a few gun fanatics out there that say you can use them for hunting, but come on. they were made on the sole intent of killing. now in relation to the issue i agree that we should have the right to use handguns in home defense. if someone comes in to my house with the intent of harming me or my family i should have the right to defend myself in whatever maner i see fit. plus. isnt the second amendment in the constitution the right to bear arms? one last thing. if you claim to have read the article and come into the room on thursday talking about having your guns taken away by the evil democrats then you will be asked to leave. thank you much.

The dog lets Brandon bark at noon said...

I think that we should have the right to bear arms. If we arent able to have weapons how can we defend ourselves? A little pink pool noodle will not defend you like the mighty power of a handgun. I think we all know people use handguns for the wrong reasons such as setting a cat on fire and seeing if you can shoot it while it runs around but if we were to get invaded someday....someday, we'll be using pink pool noodles instead of guns.

[Im sick give me a break, I cant think straight.] D:

Unknown said...

Its a constitutional right, but I am still very undecided on which side I would be on. To abuse those rights is to abuse the rights that make people free. But, handguns equal violence in most people's minds. I think I would be on the 'yes' side but still debating with myself..

笑い男(Warai Otoko) said...

well, guns where made to defend ones self for ones country, if so killing their enemey, then so be it, but wars cant be won with words, i am sorry but its true. if some Al-Qaeda Terrorist busted into your house with a ak47 whould you try to talk to the guy or put a cap in his @$$. judge's rule.....uh huh.....yea i do belive shooting him would br the right Answer. the second amendment is an individual right to all law bideing American’s. hunting and self-defense for his house and country.

Unknown said...

the question is not if you need guns for the war, it is if you should be allowed handgun.

ジョル said...

Only five responses? For shame.
I think the consitution is pretty clear, that we have the right to bear arms. We have the right to beable to defend ourselves. There's no reason why that should be taken away. Of course freedom is going to be abused. Just look at our school. We have all the freedoms in the world, and abuse them on a daily basis. Does that mean we should all go to west valley? In the same way, I think that people who have committed gun crimes and abused their second amendment right ought to be punished. Innocent people who need to defend themselves shouldn't be stripped of their rights because of this. In fact, it's BECAUSE people abuse their rights that people need to be able to defend themselves. And if it did become illegal to own guns, do you think very many criminals would give them up? That just makes the rest of us more vulnerable. [/rant]
BTW, let's not forget the question here. We tend to get waaay off topic waaaaay too easy.

Ziggy Warsex said...

i think that only melitia and or army should have the right. The constitution states we have the right to bear arms... is this for protection? i think so, we as america have our protection its called the army. honestly we dont need any other protection than a baseball bat and the police. Most people wouldnt know what to do or would even abuse the right to have a weapon in thier posesion.

The Number 12 Looks Like Brandon said...

I believe that gun should never be outlawed for any reason. The D.C. is a very "hardcore hood" which i feel is even more of a reason to bare arms, if you're innocent and some gang banger try to rob your house you need to protect your self so i rest my case.

NerdySkittles said...

I believe that it is our rights to Bear Arms although there are some downs such as it can cause bad consequences such as many deaths of innocent people, but it can also save the lives of many innocents. To take away our rigts to the second amendment is like takeing away our right to counsel. With that right we would not be the free people of the United States. So I am for the right to bear arms.

Ride-Hard said...

I think we should have the right to bear arms. I mean a person should be allowed to own a gun in there home for self defense purposes only. But I also think that those people should have to take a test like thing to determine whether or not there mentally safe. I mean if a person is mentally challenging then no they should not own a gun, and for those people who abuse this they also should not be allowed to own a gun.

Murphs said...

Upon reading two of the articles posted and the comments given by students, I sat and thought quite deeply about this matter. Concerning Bothmer's post: 'A little pink pool noodle will not defend you from the mighty power of a handgun.' Indeed, floation devices will not save me from a speeding bullet.
But an interesting thought, ja? Upon thinking about it, I am fully for a world in which it seems everybody is LARPing with foam blades.
As it stands, I think handguns should be banned. The Founding Fathers left us the Second Amendment in a period wherein after firing a near-rouge ball of lead, you had to spend entire minutes reloading. I think that the Second Amendment should have been changed when revolvers became common.
PS: Most of you need grammar lessons. 'I' is capitalized.

~Miranda May~ said...

I think that guns should only be used for protecting yourself not for killing on purpose.

JuiceBx said...

The reason why we should have gun rights (to a limit) is for proctection from other people who have guns. Crimanals will not (well some times) come at you with a knife its most likely to be a gun sooooo if we had a gun to mach their guns we might stand a chance against crimanals over all.

well formed error said...

I want to have guns.