livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
FSU students debate Second Amendment rights for assault-style weapons
Issues surrounding gun control were once reserved for politicians. Now, students are spearheading the conversation. On March 6, days before the Florida House passed a historic gun reform bill, the Florida State Union Society turned the hotly contested issue into spirited debate.
The organization invited proponents and opponents to speak on the motion: “This House [the attendees] believes the Second Amendment does not include the right to bear assault-style weapons.” Two representatives were chosen for each side.
The speaker in opposition was Erek Culbreath, the President of Florida Students for Concealed Carry, and speaking in proposition was Kathryn Casello, the Political Affairs Director for the Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus.
The motion passed with a tight 31-25 vote. Casello was not surprised that the attendees, referred to as the House, voted in favor of the resolution. She described the current climate in school campuses, where students are looking for regulation and other ways to solve problems that have surfaced recently.
Casello was impressed by the respectful dialogue, how participants came prepared, educated and willing to listen to others. She felt that the debate fulfilled its purpose of fostering discussion and openly educating people.
Casello was first to speak, opening the event with a clear message.
"This is not a debate about assault weapon bans and it’s really not a debate about gun control,” Casello said. “It is a debate about Constitutional provisions concerning the Second Amendment and what we are owed by our government.”
Both Casello and Culbreath agree that the Second Amendment is about securing a free state and self-defense. But Casello feels that the Constitution does not grant access to assault-style weapons explicitly.
Casello argued that the Second Amendment does not promote “vigilante justice or mass murder," and that public safety must be prioritized over the right to access military grade weapons.
Casello pointed to other Constitutional protections, like the freedom of speech and press, that are restricted when fundamental and human rights are put at risk and threaten the common good.
“If the right to bear arms conflicts with people’s right to live, to feel safe going to school, then we have the right to place restrictions on that,” Casello said.
What the Constitution specifically guarantees is interpreted much differently by Culbreath. He explained that an entire class of arms cannot be banned because they serve a lawful purpose: self-defense.
Culbreath believes that the United States has created a system that elevates the rights of an individual higher than any other form of government, a system where it is implicit in the Constitution and explicit in “our documents” that firearms like the AR-15 are protected so the citizenry can defend themselves from tyranny.
“It is a right that has been passed down to us,” Culbreath said.
Following statements from the speaker in opposition and the speaker in proposition, the debate opened up to the House.
Courtland Culver was one of many FSU students who made his voice heard. Culver spoke on behalf of the opposition and said that his main argument revolved around misconceptions about firearms themselves.
http://www.fsunews.com/story/news/2...dment-rights-assault-style-weapons/417238002/
Issues surrounding gun control were once reserved for politicians. Now, students are spearheading the conversation. On March 6, days before the Florida House passed a historic gun reform bill, the Florida State Union Society turned the hotly contested issue into spirited debate.
The organization invited proponents and opponents to speak on the motion: “This House [the attendees] believes the Second Amendment does not include the right to bear assault-style weapons.” Two representatives were chosen for each side.
The speaker in opposition was Erek Culbreath, the President of Florida Students for Concealed Carry, and speaking in proposition was Kathryn Casello, the Political Affairs Director for the Campaign to Keep Guns Off Campus.
The motion passed with a tight 31-25 vote. Casello was not surprised that the attendees, referred to as the House, voted in favor of the resolution. She described the current climate in school campuses, where students are looking for regulation and other ways to solve problems that have surfaced recently.
Casello was impressed by the respectful dialogue, how participants came prepared, educated and willing to listen to others. She felt that the debate fulfilled its purpose of fostering discussion and openly educating people.
Casello was first to speak, opening the event with a clear message.
"This is not a debate about assault weapon bans and it’s really not a debate about gun control,” Casello said. “It is a debate about Constitutional provisions concerning the Second Amendment and what we are owed by our government.”
Both Casello and Culbreath agree that the Second Amendment is about securing a free state and self-defense. But Casello feels that the Constitution does not grant access to assault-style weapons explicitly.
Casello argued that the Second Amendment does not promote “vigilante justice or mass murder," and that public safety must be prioritized over the right to access military grade weapons.
Casello pointed to other Constitutional protections, like the freedom of speech and press, that are restricted when fundamental and human rights are put at risk and threaten the common good.
“If the right to bear arms conflicts with people’s right to live, to feel safe going to school, then we have the right to place restrictions on that,” Casello said.
What the Constitution specifically guarantees is interpreted much differently by Culbreath. He explained that an entire class of arms cannot be banned because they serve a lawful purpose: self-defense.
Culbreath believes that the United States has created a system that elevates the rights of an individual higher than any other form of government, a system where it is implicit in the Constitution and explicit in “our documents” that firearms like the AR-15 are protected so the citizenry can defend themselves from tyranny.
“It is a right that has been passed down to us,” Culbreath said.
Following statements from the speaker in opposition and the speaker in proposition, the debate opened up to the House.
Courtland Culver was one of many FSU students who made his voice heard. Culver spoke on behalf of the opposition and said that his main argument revolved around misconceptions about firearms themselves.
http://www.fsunews.com/story/news/2...dment-rights-assault-style-weapons/417238002/
