Summary: The New York Times published a letter to the editor that contains a recommendation on how to rewrite the Second Amendment to clarify the right to own guns and the power of the government to restrict that right. It says that individuals will have the right to have guns for self-defense, but Congress or the states would have the power to restrict the possession, ownership, sale, production, and transportation of these guns. The author believes that supporters of gun control would appreciate this because it clears up the fact that the government can restrict owning a gun. They believe that the same would be true for people who want the right to own a gun because it would recognize their freedom to have a gun for self-defense reasons. The author thinks that this amendment would help to make America safer. Amendment impacted and expansion or contraction: This impacts the Second Amendment because it is about the gun control controversy. This would be a slight contraction of the Second Amendment because it allows the government to take away guns or ammunition. Opinion: I think that this rephrasing of the Second Amendment could be useful, but I think that the author is wrong about supporters of the right to own a gun appreciating this. Their restricted rights would probably annoy them. I have mixed feelings on whether people should have the right to own a gun. On one hand, it is an amendment, so I think that the government should follow that and give people the right that they deserve according to the Constitution. On the other hand, some owners of guns have been hurting a lot of people, and I (obviously) don’t want that to continue, so maybe the right should be restricted. #1 article: This is the most important article of the three that I chose because it encompasses nearly all of the gun controversy articles written recently. This letter covers a broad topic that has been much disputed recently, and the problem discussed includes all the articles that are about gun rights. Also, the argument over the Second Amendment is especially important now because of the events that involve it such as the Las Vegas shooting. The Second Amendment is one that is very important and it causes a lot of arguing, so news about gun control or rights is normally very significant. This would impact the individual freedom to bear arms because people could be stopped from buying, transporting, and selling guns. It could help to make a safer country, though, because if people wanted to use guns to harm people, the government could stop them before anything happened. This is also important because it proposes a solution that might satisfy both sides of the argument over gun control. Overall, this article is the most significant of the three that I chose.
Summary: This article provides a poll of people who would support a ban on bump stocks. It says that many people would approve of this ban, but gun experts think it would hardly affect the number of deaths caused by mass shootings. After the Las Vegas attack, the only gun consideration taking place is the bump stock ban. A bump stock is a device that allows a semiautomatic weapon to shoot almost as fast as a machine gun. This ban was supported by 72% of voters that were polled, 68% of Republicans polled, and 79% of Democrats polled. The shooter had attached these devices to weapons that he had in his hotel room, and he is the first mass shooter to use these. A gun policy expert said that although they haven’t been used in the past, this shooting might allow more use of bump stocks by mass shooters in the future. Experts didn’t think that a ban on bump stocks would cause a huge effect. It is uncertain what the bump stock ban will be like in the future. Some of our country’s leaders have responded to it positively or with some hesitation. Amendment impacted and expansion or contraction: The Second Amendment is being impacted here because this article has to do with gun rights. It is a contraction of the right to own a gun because people aren’t allowed to have certain items for their weapons. Although this isn’t specifically ‘no guns’ it does restrict the right to bear arms. Opinion: I believe that this ban would be a good idea. Even if it will only prevent a few deaths, I think that it should be a enforced in order to save those few lives. I don’t think that many gun owners would see this as very unfair, since it seems to be so dangerous. I don’t see any reason why someone would require an automatic weapon unless it was for harmful reasons, so I think that bump stocks should be banned.
Summary: This article describes the controversy that professional football teams across the country started early in the season in response to President Trump’s call to owners to fire any players who protested by kneeling during the national anthem. The disagreement began when Colin Kaepernick sat during “The Star-Spangled Banner”. This article says that if NFL teams did agree with Trump and tried to discipline players who sat or knelt, it probably wouldn’t be because of the constitution, but because of labor-relations. It considers this question: since teams play at sports stadiums that are partially funded by taxes, does an athlete who protests have freedom of speech protection standing or kneeling on a field that is partly public and partly owned by their employers? One law professor said that professional athlete silent protesting is a form of “symbolic counter-speech”. Another law professor said that the player’s rights are mostly defined by their contract with their team and the collective bargaining agreement that states the player’s working conditions as part of a franchise. He said that a team who fired a protesting player could face a discrimination complaint or a lawsuit. Resistance from NFL players’ union would be important. Amendment impacted and expansion or contraction: The First Amendment is being impacted here, or more specifically, the freedom of speech, expression, and the right to protest. So far, this right is not being expanded or contracted, but merely questioned. If teams did what President Trump asked, fire these players, then it would be a contraction because the players wouldn’t have the rights that other citizens do have, especially since no one is getting hurt by these protests. Opinion: I think that these players should have the right to protest by kneeling or sitting. If they disagree with something going on in our country, or if they wish to protest an action taken by the government, they should have the right to do so. Other citizens have these freedoms and rights, so why shouldn’t sports players just because of the job that they have? If the player’s contract for some reason said that they can’t protest, I think that the employer should have the right to fire them, but not otherwise.