Gun Laws in America

I agree that the intent of the framers of the constitution was to afford protection of citizens against a tyrannical government which was of great concern in 1787. However, the framers of the constitution were smart enough not to include a provision stating "without restriction." My opponent states that "I am in favor of anyone who wants to own a gun and is mentally stable should have access to a gun of any type, whether it be an assault weapon or a simple pistol." Anyone means any person. My opponent did not place any restrictions such as age or a felon who was convicted of a violent crime using an illegal firearm. Placing restrictions on gun ownership does not violate our 2nd amendment rights. In District of Columbia V. Heller, the Court held that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for lawful use, such as self-defense, in the home. "The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear firearms is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain "presumptively lawful," according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally ill, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose "conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms," (5) prohibit "dangerous and unusual weapons," and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents." [1] The above decision in itself can restrict U.S. citizens to certain types of guns. In addition, did the framers of the constitution consider that there would be guns capable of firing 3 rounds per second or 180 rounds per minute in the year 2013 compared to the guns available in 1787 which "were single shot black powder muskets, single shot black powder pistols, both of which used flintlocks and a primed pan and were muzzle loaders." [2] I believe a complete misunderstanding exists between those who feel that the 2nd amendment affords the ability to bear any and all types of arms without restriction. As my opponent is attempting to argue that any mentally capable person should be be able to possess a gun of any type for any reason is a prime example. Simply placing restrictions on gun ownership via gun laws is in now way an attempt by government to violate our 2nd amendment rights much in the same as freedom of speech afforded to us by the 1st amendment. We have freedom of speech but it does not allow us to say anything and everything we want at any given time. "Taking away the right to bear arms is the first step to tyranny. Hitler, Stalin, Castro. Not to mention, most gun control being pushed into laws right now will do nothing to stop a mentally unstable person from bombing a building or buying a gun off of the black market. Welcome to the real world where wishful thinking doesn't stop murder. Killing will always happen and taking away the right to bear arms will only expand a murderer's horizons." My opponents is right in that killing will always happen as unfortunately it is a part of life. However, I fail to see how bringing up 2 communists in Stalin and Castro as well as a Fascist in Hitler has anything to do with the capitalistic democracy we live in. Requiring background checks on those purchasing firearms as well as having a national database of weapons in circulation may very well not prevent a mentally unstable person from purchasing a weapon on the "black market" but could very well allow law enforcement to trace that weapon back to the person who sold it to him or her. It is my position that restriction does not equate to infringement and alowing any mentally stable person to have access to any gun of any type would not only be reckless but dangerous to society. [1]http://www.cga.ct.gov... [2]http://richardvaningram.hubpages.com...