Online Comments
In response to “Right to bear arms not absolute” (by Anthony Carli, Sept. 24):

The article is well written, good job Anthony. However, you mention the framers of the Constitution creating this amendment due to the recently finished warfare. To say that this reasoning is simply outdated isn’t enough substance to get rid of it entirely. While I agree that they weren’t intending people own guns for entertainment, it would be impossible to differentiate these people from those that use them for hunting, safety, etc.
Higher levels of background checks and wait periods are something I agree with because so many of the people involved in recent shootings showed clear signs of mental health issues and previous encounters with the law. These should have raised red flags somewhere along the way. I dissent when it comes to arguments that push for blanket regulations. We are taught every day to keep from stereotyping. Think how many acts of terrorism have occurred in the last decade, but we must not accuse every Muslim of being violent. That would be absurd. The same is true for gun owners: many use them responsibly, but there are the few irresponsible ones that should not be allowed to decide things for the rest of us.

— Connor Young

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

That’s the First Amendment. But Congress does make laws, for example, abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceable to assemble.

That’s because we recognize that while these are freedoms we need to have, there are some places and situations where it is prudent for public safety to limit these freedoms (for example, shouting fire in a crowded theater).

If we can abridge the First Amendment in the interests of public safety, why can’t we do the same with the second?
Besides, if you truly believe that we must not infringe upon the Second Amendment, then citizens should be allowed to have any sort of arms they want, including even nuclear weapons.

But in the interests of public safety, and the fact that it completely goes against the purposes of the Second Amendment, we don’t allow that.

Similarly, if you’re going to say the purpose of the Second Amendment is for things like hunting animals or protecting yourself from criminals, then having background checks doesn’t prevent you from doing that, and neither does banning assault weapons. They are simply checks meant to protect public safety and make sure that weapons that can be used to kill people don’t fall into the wrong hands.

Or would you say that attempting to make sure criminals don’t acquire guns is not something that our government has a vested interest in?

And if you’re going to argue that criminals can still illegally get guns, then we may as well repeal laws against murder, because people who want to murder will still kill people.

— Ashwin

You didn’t just use the nuclear weapons argument? OK, let’s put that to rest forever.

Firearms are used for specific targets, One bullet, one target. When the bullet stops moving, it’s no longer a danger to anyone.
Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate with enormous geographic impact with a lasting blight long after it’s single use.

No, it’s not legal for any citizen anywhere to personally own a nuclear ANYTHING. Paraphrasing Mr. ColionNior, the 1980s called and they want that argument back.

Expansion of background checks only impede the law abiding and criminals who want guns are unfettered with respect to additional restrictions. Simply look at the places with restrictive weapons laws. Chicago, DC, California, etc.

Everybody who is interested in protecting their rights is extremely happy that you are on the opposing side. Please continue your debate loudly.

— Christina Leah