If guns are becoming a problem that still doesn't mean the federal government has the power to take them away entirely. Our country is in fact NOT in a time of clear and present danger so therefore your argument cannot be valid. If there was suddenly a huge amplification of a drug smuggling problem in our country, the federal government wouldn't have the power to just do away with the fourth amendment and search peoples cars and homes at random just to fix the problem. It is the same thing in the case of the second amendment. They can't just do away with it because guns are becoming a problem. There are other ways to find a solution. There is a reason that the bill of rights was created in the first place and there is a reason it has had such an important role in our country theses past couple hundred years. The government can't just take away people's rights to fix a problem, they have found other ways of doing so for the past 244 years and that should not be any different now.

It is very clearly stated in the constitution that "being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." People have an individual right to own firearms. It doesn't matter whether or not you like guns, support them, or own them yourself, you still have a RIGHT to have them. Some may argue that in the context of the time the constitution was written, this amendment referred to militias only. While this may be technically true, also in the context of the time this was written the term "militia" did not mean exclusively a state or civilian army. The term "militia" referred to any able bodied white men between the ages of 18 and 45. In today's society this obviously would stretch to other genders and races as well, but the principle stays the same. It doesn't matter if you think there should be more restrictions on gun laws, the people still have a right to have them. So the government can do what they may, place more age restrictions or conduct things such as background checks on people interested in purchasing firearms, but they cannot take away gun rights in their entirety. It is a right that belongs to the people, no matter how hard they must work to get it.

It doesn't matter that the sex may be for pleasure there is still ALWAYS the risk of a child. It doesn't matter if they didn't want the child, if they partook in the action they should have been prepared for the consequences.

The end of your argument is invalid "some women have never had sex ed in their life" while this may be true people are not stupid or clueless. Unless it is a child who has been raped, women and men both are aware that sex is how children are born. You don't need all the technical details from a sex education class to figure that out. If they can't afford a condom, don't have sex simple as that. You can't make your argument "they will still have sex" because of course they will, but the point is that they can't claim they didn't know it could possibly result in a child. If you have sex, there is always the possibility of it resulting in a child. If these teenagers continue having sex then it is their own fault if it results in a child. They cannot claim they didn't know it would result in a baby that is absolutely ridiculous.

"What if the child grows up to be a criminal" this could be true for any child. For every child there is good and bad potential, not just ones who get aborted. You argue that the child could grow up to be a criminal, but this is an invalid argument because any child could grow up to be a criminal, it has nothing to do with the fact that the child would have potentially been aborted. If they grow up to be a criminal it would be based on the fact that they were raised in a bad environment, not the fact that they might have been aborted. It is taking someones life either way, it doesn't matter what "potential" the child has, the only fact of the matter is that is HAS a potential because it has a LIFE.

this is an incorrect statement. You said you believe abortion should be illegal then went on to argue for the fact that it should be legal. Get your argument straight.

I agree, that's the entire point of separation of church and state.

The precedent of Roe v. Wade is a good one to follow, because it says that you can get an abortion, as long as it’s not past a certain point. It’s a perfectly logical argument, and satisfies both sides of the issue. According to the American Pregnancy Association, most women find out they are pregnant when they are 4-7 weeks along in their pregnancy. If a woman finds out she is pregnant at 6 weeks, she has plenty of time to decide whether or not she wants and abortion before she hits that 24 week mark. If a woman is unsure whether she wants an abortion or not, she has plenty of time to think about it and consider her decision before it is past the reasonable time. I do not think it should be legal for a woman to get an abortion past this point, because then the baby is very much viable, and no longer a fetus. We know that every person, situation, and story is so different and diverse that each woman should have the right to choose what she wants to do in her situation.

this is Jeremiah. i think gun control is very much a state issue. Although its important to come to a conclusion that everyone can follow because people are dying, i also think that depending on the state, gun control should be different. But the states should be VERYYY fast and complex with their decisions because people need protection from gun crimes that are very Common. people just don't realize the responsibility that comes with guns being allowed in your state. If the states really care, they need to come up with ways to enjoy their guns and keep people safe.

Gun control should be a state issue. Each state is so different, from the culture, to the people, to the location. Places like Texas should have more lax gun control laws, because in a place like Texas, many people hunt, participate in rodeos, and have much more use for guns than somewhere like say Massachusetts. People in a place like Massachusetts have much less use for guns and also argue much more strongly for gun control laws. Based off this, it makes much more sense for gun control to be a state issue rather than a federal one, because by making it a federal issue each state is lumped into one category, when they are all so diverse, some being complete paradox's from one another.