Gun Control, Loose or Strict Construction-ism

[David Brandon]

     Gun Control In its most natural form is one of the most simplistic arguments over one of the most basic rights. We all know what’s happening in the world today, we have all seen the news. This topic is so interesting to me because it can be as complicated as you want it to be and as simple as you want it to be. What I like about the article is that it touches very well on the fact that they went there. They went to the bill of rights and they said, it says in the bill of rights, US Citizens have the right to bear arms. Now while they were trying to remain as neutral as possible over the debate in the article, they did give some credibility to the very fact that the US constitution does say that we have the right to bear arms.

      On the other side they do bring in the “read between the lines” or a rather loose interpretation of the constitution. This idea says “yes, you have the right to bear arms, BUT WHAT KIND OF ARMS” and should other limitations be involved as well. Or that they agree it says that but when it was written originally in the 1700’s, it was a different time then it was now. Now is a time when you can change things up in the constitution because simply it’s a different time.

     I think what really attracted me to this article is because they don’t try to argue the two sides to gun control, whether there should be more gun control or less gun control. They argue the interpretations of the constitution. Obviously people wanting looser gun control would be strict constructionists, and people wanting tighter gun control would more likely be loose constructionists. 

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/02/opinion/omara-minnesota-guns/index.ht...

[Kristina Kenney]

Gun control is obviously a huge issue in America right now with everything that has happened in our country lately (and in the past). I personally do not believe in strict gun control at all, but I do think the system needs some reformation. Times, technology, and people have changed since the 1700s when the right to bear arms was guaranteed to citizens through the Constitution. In those times, "arms" meant muskets, possibly rifles, bayonets, or guns of that nature- slow loading, less accurate, heavy weapon of less destruction. Today, "arms" can mean weapons of much more destruction, that can kill many people in a few seconds. Obviously there has been some advancement. However, I do not believe the government should have any right to say that a relatively stable and sane human being with no obvious intent of using a weapon for means other than protection, sport, or personal use, can not own their own gun that they buy and own legally. The system in place now is not perfect either. Background checks, safety training, and psychological evaluation should be implemented/enforced. Criminalizing gun ownership would stop guns from being owned or used. It would only mean that it would be harder to get said guns and the only people with guns would be the criminals that obtained or kept them illegally. The same can be said for drugs. In my opinion, as crazy as it may seem to people, most drugs should not be illegal. The government should not be able to say how someone can or cannot live (or yes, potentially ruin) their own life. It's their life to ruin, not the governments. Illegality of drugs does not stop people from using them. It only stops people who have used them from seeking help. It is not necessarily harder to buy or make them. The same can be said for guns, and to me it makes no sense for a government to try and control how people live their lives or what they use for protection, especially when in many people's opinions, it is the government they may end up needing protection from anyway.

[Mackenzie Fitzgerald]

I, too, found this to be a very interesting and well written article. This issue has always been an issue but with many of the recent events this matter seems to have blown up. I like how this article was written with the goal of presenting the facts of history and gives way to both sides of the argument. I don't know what the optimal solution to this issue should be but I do think that the system needs some reformation but not to the point where gun owners lose their rights. Regardless of new laws that are implemented the people that intend to harm with guns are still going to find ways around the system to get guns and do harm. The only thing strict gun laws do is prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves properly against these criminals. I believe that that should be taken into consideration when reforming laws so that the innocent are not made helpless. 

[1mtk05kqfwp75]

Over a year later and this is still a very relevant topic. With numerous mass shootings and even more killings every single day the topic of gun control can not be over looked. The constitution clearly states that every citizen has the right to bear arms. There is no getting around that or over-looking it. In my opinion, when people think they can just take guns out of the world and all the problems will be solved, that is crazy. Yes, we have has many mass shootings in our history but when we look at how many gun owning citizens there are that one person that led the shooting is a tiny percent. I do think that the government can try and make buying a gun more of a process, however they cant just take them away. The constitution clearly says what it says and there isn't much interpretation about it. It is very difficult to keep guns out of the wrong hands, however there are millions of people in this country that are "good hands" and should have every right to bear those arms.

[Tumushime Joshua Gatabazi]

This top is absolutely heavy in this country because an like other countries, US citizens have been supported by their constitution to bear arms. If we take an example from other countries, this would be a different story. like Rwanda where I' am from and even other African countries, no one is allowed to carry or own arms of any kind but does that stop people from killing each other ? no, not at all.

For people to harm other people it is not a result of arm bearing. Yes arm bearing could ease or quicken the process but the big issue is always with the psychological health of the people. If there would be a way to solve this psychological problem, I believe the government would have done so, but it is not easy at all. Some one with good intentions might buy a gun but get health issues later on and miss use his/her property or an unhealthy relative could use it.

But should all this be the reason to make arm bearing illegal? I don't think so, because whether it's legal or illegal people will still find a way to access them and misuse them.