Argument 2: Second Amendment Rights

Argument 2: Second Amendment Rights

For Argument: 

Placing limitations on where handguns are allowed and who can carry a concealed handgun on Kansas college campuses infringes on the community’s second amendment right to bear arms. Governor Brownback defended his movement to allow concealed handguns on campuses in Kansas without restrictions by stating that “this matter is about the second amendment right, and though some may question the right and its limitations, it is a constitutional right none the less. If we as a people limit and ultimately take away this right, what other rights can be taken away as well?”. The constitution ensures that every citizen has the right to defend and protect him or herself. By taking away this right, citizens may be less able to protect themselves if a situation were to occur.

Question: What are reasons why you do not feel it is okay for the government to limit your constitutional rights?

Against Argument: 

However, on the other hand, constitutional rights have been limited in the past to ensure the safety of American citizens. For instance, the first amendment right allows freedom of speech, but in 1919 a Supreme Court justice stated, “The first amendment right would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater and causing a panic”. Though everyone has the right of freedom of speech, one would infringe on said right if they were to cause clear and present danger. Allowing handguns on college campuses would add clear and present danger should a “shootout” occur. Limiting rights has been done in the past in order to ensure public safety, just like it will do in the future. Limiting the right is not taking it away, it is simply protecting the people of the United States from a threat of clear and present danger.

Question: When do you think it is okay for the government to limit your constitutional rights?

Links:

http://concealedcampus.org/campus-crime/  

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/not-many-exceptions-to-free-speech-guarantee

Synthesis

Big Question: Should adults be allowed to carry guns onto public colleges and universities and into campus buildings?

Major Democratic Ideals in Play: Public Safety, 2nd Amendment right

The current exemption allows public universities and colleges to prohibit concealed carry of handguns on campuses. This exemption will expire in 2017. After that time, buildings would have to be equipped with security measures in order to prevent people from carrying handguns. 

Some argue that the right to conceal and carry on campus compromises public safety while others argue that it enhances public safety should a threat arise on campus. On one hand, an increased number of handguns on campus has the potential to increase violence and create a more dangerous environment. However, a concealed handgun could also stop an active shooter that was a danger to many people if they came on to campus.

Another common argument is that the current exemption infringes on and limits the Second Amendment right to bear arms. However, in contrast with the infringement on the Second Amendment, other constitutional rights have been limited in the past in order to ensure public safety. While the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, the risks of increased handguns on college campuses outweighs that right. 

Links for more information if interested in this topic:

http://time.com/4237638/campus-carry-texas-universities/?xid=homepage  

http://time.com/4236258/iowa-bill-children-handguns/?xid=homepage

http://www.csg.org/pubs/capitolideas/enews/cs20_1.aspx

For Editorial

When it comes to allowing handguns on Kansas’ campuses, I really see no reason to deny individuals this right. Second Amendment rights are also being infringed upon by denying individuals their rights to bear arms. No state or university has the right to overrule the Constitution, the law of our country. It is our constitutional right as citizens to be armed if we so choose. To restrict our rights as citizens would be to deny us our pursuit of liberty.

Having individuals who are readily armed and willing to act in the event of a shooting is an invaluable asset. A large amount of lives could be saved in the time it takes first responders to arrive. Putting the public safety first is at the heart of this supposed conflict, and when individuals are properly equipped to act the public is safer than without a form of defense. In addition, there is nothing that is going to stop a shooter from acting if he or she really wants to. Just because a law says that handguns can’t be present in an area does not guarantee deterrence. Signs that say “no weapons allowed” are just as efficient as speed limit signs in stopping rule breakers. A sign poses no tangible opposition, and is easily ignored. A human being is far more effective in this regard than a sign. Frankly, it surprises me it has taken so long for Kansas to allow concealed carry on the premises of public buildings.

Question: Where and how might someone who is against the concealed carry law poke holes in this argument?