Second Amendment divides readers: Is it ‘like a civilian nuclear deterrent’ or is it 'antiquated’?

Second Amendment divides readers: Is it ‘like a civilian nuclear deterrent’ or is it ‘antiquated’?

Gun Rights

Readers weigh in on a commentary piece published in The Morning Call about the relevancy of the Second Amendment in America today. Three days after it was published, an op-ed piece challenging the relevancy of the Second Amendment in today’s America continues to be one of the most-popular reads on The Morning Call’s website. And it’s driving quite a discussion on Facebook. Under the headline, “ Why Second Amendment no longer serves a national purpose ,” Marlin Reinhart of Mahoning Township suggested the amendment is an “antique of the past." Many readers disagree with him. Some concur. Here are examples of what people are saying on Facebook, in response to Reinhart’s “Your View” and to my column this morning commenting on Reinhart’s thoughts and asking for others to weigh in on the topic. Malcolm F Smith II: “The 2nd isn’t an antique. It has been interpreted to mean that any regulation is an infringement; it isn’t. Background checks and red flag laws are designed to protect society from those that shouldn’t own guns. I disagree with bans of weapons but I find regulating them to be perfectly acceptable.” JoAnn Kennedy: “No. You start chipping away at one and all will be done away with. There are plenty of good laws on the books, just like there are plenty of good journalists who will suffer under freedom of speech and freedom of press.” Mike Vielhauer: “The fact that the government forces us to pay more taxes, forces more orders restricting […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.