Debate: The right to bear arms

[Yllarius]

In response to the man in Texas who killed the two robbers, to what extent does the right to bear arms go? To bear arms is to have a weapon, most likely a gun, and to have it on your person, in your vehicle, or in your house. Not to use it freely, as intimidation or to kill. If you want to use your gun you can take it to a range or go hunting. the right to bear arms, however, doesn't give anyone the right to kill which is how i think most people interpret it as.

[simonmagwitch]

It's my opinion that when written, the right was intended to keep people armed for a reason. It was supposed to give them the right to keep their weapons so that they could use them if needed. There still need to be consequences if used improperly, but It's my opinion that the right to bear arms is the right to use arms... One has to admit that the thought of any potential targets being armed and able to use those arms is a powerful deterrent to violent crime.

That isn't to say I think the right should remain. Limiting civilian possession of firearms only aids the criminals, yes, but keeping the trade of firearms as open as it is now seems an impractical idea. What about keeping tabs on purchasers of firearms and checking in on the weapon periodically? What about keeping a list of forensics on the weapon such as a rifling-groove sample, or having the owner bring the weapon in yearly for officials to check against their unsolved forensic files? Those with nothing to hide should have no problem abiding by these new laws, and weapons that mysteriously go missing can be investigated thoroughly...

[Yllarius]

I agree, but in the end what would stop a person from avoiding those thing? It'd me just as easy as forgetting to turn in your homework. And then, chances are you'd have to pay an arm and a leg to get them checked like that, just another way for our government to rob us. I think in the end, a store should keep tabs on the grooves within the barrel, and who it was sold. It's a sound idea, that shouldn't take to much time or money.

[simonmagwitch]

Well, if a person avoids those things, the penalties should be steep enough that it becomes a real deterrent. I guarantee that if the penalty were a $2,000.00 Fine and up to 2-Months in jail, people wouldn't just forget to check in. It would also make an unregistered, unchecked weapon stand out that much more when one is found or involved in a crime. Not only that, but a taxation system to pay for the procedures would even benefit the economy.

I really don't think we should have the right to bear arms, but rather the privilege to do so. I feel it unfortunate that the trade of firearms is so open in this country and that people try and raise hell when the government tries to place limitations on them.

How messed up is it that I think the government isn't controlling enough?
Link Related www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c8stoUN2x4

[kole]

[Liam]

The right to bear arms was made in order to allow citizens to have a weapon in order to protect their home and their own self. The idea of hunting and shooting ranges came after, in order to allow people to use them for sport, and therefore, reduce the limits as to what a gun was meant for. How were the founding fathers to know guns would be utilized for murder or other such things? They could not know this, so that is why the elastic clause was made withing our constitution, in order to allow laws to be made to fit the current situation.