Laura Venneri

It breaks my heart every time I hear about another shooting no matter if it’s at a school, mall or private dwelling. 

The damage is devastating at so many levels when a shooting takes place, not just for those directly involved but for the community involved and for the entire country. It’s not right that kids worry about being safe at school or some teachers feel the need to carry a gun in the classroom.

Some people are voicing their opinions and saying that we need more laws or no guns; that we should make it harder for everyone to buy guns and ammunition to the point of making all of it illegal. On the opposite side the supporters of guns state that it’s a right to have any type of gun based on the 2nd Amendment. People have the right to protect themselves.

I stand somewhere in the middle. 

I agree that it’s our right to bear arms. As for the 2nd Amendment, when our forefathers on Dec. 15, 1791 wrote, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” I don’t believe that they intended for assault rifles, that spew a mass quantity of bullets would be the type of “Arms” an average citizen would have or even be made. 

I don’t feel, for example, that bump stocks should be available to the average citizen. I do believe that the average citizen should be allowed to have guns. 

I heard someone say once that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. If you make all guns illegal to everyone, bad people will still get guns and good people will not have any.

I don’t have the answers to the problem but one thing I do know, don’t punish the innocent as we move forward.

Recommended for you

(3) comments

K Hinton

There are at least a half-dozen ways to make any magazine-fed rifle act as if they had bumpstocks on them. Getting rid of them will accomplish nothing; save to make people actually think government is "doing" something.

Further, when the 2nd Amendment came to be, there was no difference between military weapons and non-military weapons.

Does anyone believe... for one second... that those same Founding Fathers would now advocate that the precedent they set with the intention behind it should now be ignored and the people should have NO chance against the government they may be called upon at some point to keep in check?

The right to own a weapon is well established but efforts are ongoing to nibble at that right to the point the 2A can become meaningless. One wonders: if those same efforts were underway aimed at the freedom of the press, would you feel the same way? After all, when the Constitution was written, all you had were quill pens and offset, manual printers.

And somehow I don't think you'd like that, Madam Editor.

Spinedoctr

You just don't get it! Our constitutional right, is not something the current people who got themselves elected or appointed , allow us to have. The " military weapon " of 1776 was a musket. The people of this country had the same weapon as the military, but now the military has full auto weapons and worse that we do not have. Do not write more about the subject if you can't understand simple historical facts.

Jeremiad

You are welcome to your opinion, but arms in 1776 and in 2018 means weapons that are commonly used in war, or in defense. The most common weapon is an AR-15 or something similar, NOT a musket.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.