Home » Big Issues » Argue With Us! Your Second Amendment Rights

Argue With Us! Your Second Amendment Rights

Point: The Right to Bear Arms—Within Reason

by Bailey O’Malia

In the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy Americans and politicians have spent time reflecting on gun control.

We often hear that our founding fathers wrote our right to bear arms into the Constitution as a way to protect ourselves from harm; that they wanted us to have that right, even today.

But that’s not something I’m so sure about.

When the founding fathers wrote our constitution their idea of a weapon was a musket. Not an automatic weapon. The gun they had in mind would be used for safety or for hunting.

With this in mind I wonder, what the fathers of our nation would have said about civilians owning military-grade weapons that can shoot a hundred rounds in a minute?

Surely there is no need for a civilian to hold that kind of power in his hand. In fact, why should anyone have that much power over another human being? Do we really trust each other’s judgment?

I’ve been thinking about this for days and I can’t come up with one good reason that a person would need anything more than a handgun or rifle for “safety.”

So when the discussion of changing the gun laws is brought up I think, what a perfectly simple solution; ban all automatic weapons. This appeases the Democrats because they will have made steps towards gun reform, and the Republicans because they won’t be fully losing their right to bear arms. If you consider shooting an automatic weapon a fun hobby, they could still be available to rent at a gun range.

But this is a compromise. A concept politicians and Americans are unfamiliar with these days.

If you’re pro-guns at this point you’re probably saying “but it’s my right, and they’re taking away all of our rights.”

But it’s also your right to feel safe in this country. And despite the theorists who say “arm every person in the country, that’ll scare ‘em!” The lunatics that are shooting up movie theaters and schools don’t seem to place much value on their life or the lives of others.

So before you start spouting your founding fathers crap, take a second to think about the core principle that this country was supposedly built on: freedom. And I don’t know about you, but I don’t feel very “free” knowing that my neighbor could be housing an AK-47 in his garage.

 

CounterPoint: The Reason for the Right to Bear Arms

by Tim Young

As intelligent as I think Bailey is, she’s dead wrong here.  I do feel safer knowing that my neighbor could be housing an AK-47 in his garage.  Why?  Because I know most of my neighbors are honest, hardworking people who aren’t nutcases looking to shoot up schoolchildren.

See, what happens when these terrible tragedies occur is the media blows things out of proportion to spread their leftist views… and as much as I generally don’t yell and point fingers about how biased they are… this time, they really have showed their hand.  Somewhere in the middle of all the hype about how access to guns was the issue here, we forget what the Second Amendment was really about.

When the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they wanted to ensure that all people were equal… equal with each other and equal with the government.  Yes, when this was all written, people only had muskets… but do you know who else only had muskets?  The government.

We had just finished overthrowing a tyrannical government in order to become a free nation, and the founders, who literally helped fight in that war, wanted the American people to have equal footing with whatever government took over, in order to prevent tyranny if necessary once again.  These guys were smart, they weren’t thinking inside the box of their time.  They were completely aware that technology would change, but they wanted Americans to be able to stand up for themselves.  How does one do that?  By having the same level of weaponry as the government!

The Constitution was written with revolution in mind, not the peace that we have internally had for about 150 years now.  I say 150 years, because we fought ourselves with our armed militias in The Civil War… we have been lucky to have had internal peace since then…  But you can’t closed-mindedly say that the Second Amendment was for limited weapons.  It just wasn’t.  It was meant to keep people on the same level as the government, so that they could fight for their rights if necessary.

And sure, if my neighbors had rocket launchers, I think I’d be scared just because they could blow up my house… But if original founders were still around, I think they’d be alright with it.

 

We want you to weigh in on this argument!  Type your comments below!

 

Get the latest news & reviews into your inbox.

By submitting above you agree to the AbsoluteRights Privacy Policy

Like Absolute Rights on Facebook

263 comments

  1. Bailey should make sure she is friends with her neighbors. Is she aware that drunk drivers kill many more times the number of children (& adults), than do the few idiots that seek a few minutes of fame (or martyr-ism)? Is she aware that the news media blows anything about guns, out of proportion? What about Kent State? You never hear about that situation, every time some idiot wants to make a point. How come the college educated idiots running this country into the ground, aren’t intelligent enough to figure out that making the schools less accessible to people who have no business being in them, would have prevented the Newtown tragedy.

    (0)
  2. After I read the second paragraph of Ms. O’Malia’s comments, I was having some reservations. Before I finished reading the fourth paragraph, it was a done deal. In all fairness, I did read her whole ‘argument’… with a yawn.

    Sorry, Ms. O’Malia — you loose.

    Tim, you (and others) have said it all. No reason for me to take up a lot of space on things that have already been said so well.

    I would like to emphasize one thing that I feel very strongly about, though: I want to be armed with the same firepower as my government — they’ve got a 30 round mag, then I want to be able to have a 30 round mag. I feel I’ve given a mile by conceding to their having fully automatic weapons and I can only have semi-auto (even though full-auto in the hands of someone not trained is pretty ineffective.) And, yes, I know that for a nominal fee and a license, I can possess a fully automatic weapon (at least, in my state of Texas) — that’s NOT my point.

    That said, I’m all for gun control — as long as there is only one gun in the world and I control it.

    Semper Fi.

    (0)
  3. Like many people I think anyone who owns a gun be it a pistol or a rifle and practices with it could probably kill a person with one shot and not need an automatic weapon. I personally do not own a fully automatic weapon but do own semi-automatic. I also own a sniper rifle. It’s not the weapon that is at fault here, it is the lack of understanding and follow up of those that are mentally challenge and the lack of proper parental upbringing to understand right from wrong.

    (0)
  4. To ban guns is the wrong way very wrong. Criminals are criminals because they donot obey laws. The Ten commandmments say donot kill criminals donot obey any laws. Almost all of the school shootings were by kids or adults being treated for behaviour of depression problems. Side effects 1. depression worsening risk of suicide 2.Abnormal behaviour ie. confusion,agression,hallucinations, aggitation. All school shootings were in gunfree zones (shoot me I am unarmed zones).
    Our founding Fathers included the bill of rights as a list of English Common Law rights recognized to be given by God and not to be regulated by man.

    (0)
  5. I’m with Tim on this one. I just wish I could get a M1 Abirion and a V-22 in my yard. That would help level the field.

    (0)
  6. Well Rob Evans since u are a Canuck you shpuld really keep out of what doesnt concern u.
    U have no rights. Most surely u have no busoness in this debate so dummy up.

    (0)
  7. Bailey said, “Do we really trust each other’s judgment?”
    No, and that’s why I’ll keep my gun.

    (0)
  8. The comments made by Ms. O’Malia were quite bizarre,as anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of history or guns would appreciate. In her reference to muskets, the only military or indeed CIVILIAN weapon available at that period of time was a musket! Certainly in the 2+ centuries since then,weaponry has advanced greatly. Also, the citizenry WAS the military in essence. The militia was (and still is) we the people! Again I fail to comprehend how anyone seems to think that fully automatic weapons are readily available to just anyone. Class III firearms are rigorously regulated…you just can’t go to your local gunshop and buy one! Her concluding statement was just as patently absurd…go and rent a MACHINE GUN at a gun range??? In the words of Jar Jar Binks Watcha you been thinkin!!??

    (0)
  9. Progressives….Socialist……Communist all share the same goal to destroy that which they themselves do not possess. Their inability to present a coherent discussion using supported non convoluted facts will always reveal these individuals….when presented with the truth these reprobates resort to the very actions that they accuse those of us who are conservatives of…..always blaming others for their actions, name calling, issuing threats, and even violence!

    (0)
  10. I’m not convinced that the young perpetrators of the mass killings are not victims or should I say “deployments” of psych-ops to achieve the agenda of disarming civilians. After the murders en mass, the perps all seem to kill themselves. There’s no way to get in their heads to find out the true motive.

    (0)
  11. I scrolled down once I read about the Militia may be the way to go! I have to say this and am at Peace with God to do so!

    The MAIN issue with the World in past and present is the Bankers, 100%! The number of ammo is 1.4 Billion+ by DHS alone!

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=gates+depopulation&oq=Gates+De&gs_l=youtube.1.2.0l4.41684.54822.0.61448.14.11.3.0.0.0.573.1099.10j5-1.11.0…0.0…1ac.1.lMinuAqXq04

    Go to infowars.com, get informed and spread the word! They show proof of everything…

    (0)
  12. I’ve been browsing online more than 3 hours nowadays, but I never discovered any fascinating article like yours. It’s lovely value enough for me. In my view, if all website owners and bloggers made good content as you probably did, the internet might be a lot more helpful than ever before.

    (0)
  13. I am actually pleased to read this weblog posts which consists of lots of helpful
    data, thanks for providing these statistics.

    (0)
  14. Th ey going to do what they want any how wy doe’s it mater v

    (0)
  15. My right’s to bear arms shall not be infringed, do you people really understand what this means?

    (0)
  16. the 2nd amendment calls for a well regulated militia
    not a bunch of paranoid a holes
    who answer to no one

    (0)
  17. Bailey O’Malia has no clue what she is talking about. Her idea of the government letting the people keep arms that are “within reason” as she says does NOT square with the original intent of the Founders: “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, AND EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER, are the birthright of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.) The intent of the Founders is undeniably obvious: Coxe specifically wrote the words, “EVERY terrible implement of the soldier;’ he did not write “SOME implements of the soldier, as long as they are not too terrible and do not pose a threat to the absolute domination of the Political Class over the people.” At the end of the day, that is what this issue boils down to: CONTROL. Politicians loathe the idea that they must answer to anyone or anything. They chafe under the restraints of the constitution and resent the citizens who maintain the ability to remove them from office by force if necessary. That is the EXACT reason for the Second Amendment: To make it possible for the people to revolt against a tyrannical Political Class – and to prevail in that revolt. You do not prevail against a standing army that is armed to the teeth by using revolvers and O/U bird shotguns, but then the Second Amendment was never written with hunting in mind. As Mike Vanderboegh observes, “The Second Amendment is a political issue today only because of the military reality that underlies it. Politicians who fear the people seek to disarm them. People who fear their government’s intentions refuse to be disarmed. The Founders understood this. So does every tyrant who ever lived. Americans forget it at their peril.” Judge Andrew Napolitano is more to the point in his observation: “The Second Amendment was not written to protect your right to shoot deer. It was written to protect your right to shoot tyrants if they take over the government.” While Bailey O’Malia may recoil with horror from these assertions, they are in fact EXACTLY what the Founders intended with regard to the people and their right to arms in America.

    (0)
  18. Bailey – even I know that if I wanted to own a fully automatic weapon I would have to acquire a FFL. Banning semiautos would not stop someone from attacking with several revolvers or another type of weapon. What you are proposing is to radically disarm the american people to be radically disadvantaged in opposing a tyrannical government (ours or others) and including well armed criminals.
    If the founding fathers had our current weaponry, I am confident they would argue that we should be able to own (and bear) full autos, rocket launchers, tanks, fighter aircraft, etc.
    It is unfortunate that some Americans would readily turn against our constitution and if not disarm us completely but to limit us to single shot or even black powder defense.

    (-1)
  19. that was a reply to paul’s link.

    (-1)
  20. Dear Sir: Yes I can appreciate your point of view. If I knew my neighbor had a loaded AK 47 beside his bed just beside my house. In Canada if the Police caught you with an AK 47 ,loaded or not,you would be in “Deep Do Do”so the chance of the man in the house next store is not a real threat. However, if he and his wife have lots of guns and ammo,then a quiet call to the Police would take care of this problem gun problem and here we refer to the world courts and specifically those founded by the Unit Kingdom.
    Just like the fights today verses about 200 years ago. Near the end of my hunting career I killed a male=woodcock. When a Psycho. in Montreal still not put the Possessionion of thid gun against. This is kind of “angry because the majoriy

    rob

    evams,

    (-3)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>