Speech really hasn't changed much over the course of human history, just how speech and other forms of communications are delivered. For example, hate speech delivered via a newspaper printed on the Gutenberg press is versus hate speech delivered via blog is still hate speech. Whereas with firearms, the method of delivery actually enhances destructiveness. So, no the Founding Fathers probably did not imagine television, but speech has remained constant for the most part.

The idea that we could just give everyone a gun then all of a sudden gun violence would stop is unrealistic and dangerous. I sincerely hope that you do not really believe that this is the answer, particularly in one of the most densely populated states in the nation. It would promote vigilantism that would tear at the fabric of our nation and our country. You saw what happened with Trayvon in Florida.

No one would argue that we are limited to our First Amendment rights as they existed in 1791, but that does not mean there are no limitations to those rights. We have all heard the example of someone maliciously crying out "Fire" in a crowded theatre. We cannot intentionally committ slander against someone. The FCC prohibits certain activities and language from being used on television, radio, and the Internet. Why then is it so preposterous to think that there can be no limits on the Second Amendment.as tryintosurvive points out. New Jersey has recognized this and put in place strong gun laws. I choose to put my faith in those laws rather than relying on a virtual army of people carrying concealed weapons. But since all states have different laws, federal laws are necessary in some cases such as on-line sales.

To say any gun is more dangerous than other is asinine. Just because a gun looks scary does not make it any more lethal. Guns are guns. There are many reasons to own a gun, and hurting people is not one of them. I like to hunt, shoot targets and shoot skeet. A gun like a AR-15 or AK-47 is good for target shooting. Uninformed people like yourself are the problem. A .22lr kills more people than the "scary" guns and they are commonly used by youths. I used one in Boy Scouts. Also saying "If you are a gun owner, you can keep your pistols or rifles." an AK47 or AR15 IS a rifle. They fire the same ammunition as other sporting rifles. If you want to keep "dangerous stuff" off the streets I suggest getting rid of cars. Gun deaths are EXTREMELY low in comparison of car accidents, malpractice deaths, posionings, etc. Here's a modest proposal, if you want to stay safe don't drive, throw out all the noxious chemicals in your house and don't go to the doctor.

The only thing that bothers me a lot in this country is knee-jerk reactions with zero basis on actual facts. People like you, like to use narrow scope information, if using any information at all and "demand" that their bubble world is not burst. I suggest doing what intelligent people do. If you find an issue, FIRST look up BOTH sides of the issue, RESEARCH, then and only then can you come up with an opinion.

Maximillian – thank you for your staunch defense of the Constitution. Now about those Democrat prisons… will they be maximum security or the white collar type. i.e. Will I still have Wi-Fi and a tennis court, or can I bring my clubs?. Will we be rounded up by the aliens that Obama is summoning or just the National Guard?

Well said Jake.

almost right , I think the only people that should carry weapons concealed are law enforcment. Here's what I think should happen , if you want to carry a weapon you carry it out in the open. First it should be controlled , you need to have a firearms safety training program set number of hours and be able to fire and clean your weapon. 2nd apply for a permit w/ the cert of completing the safety program and pay a small fee for the background check ect , the county or state MUST approve or deny in 30 days.
SAFETY is always first , do you think someone would want to start a shoot out knowing there were many people openly packing.... I know it sounds like the wild west but it where we came from....

GeorgeS30, I don't think NJ will ever allow Open Carry. The state claims concealed is safer as no one will grab at "your" gun. All of your other ideas are required already in NJ (not CO), In addition to having to re-qualify at the range every six months.
NJ simply just doesn't issue a Concealed Carry unless you are a Judge, Prosecutor, Ex-Police or Active Police. Read about the poor guy from NJ that was kidnapped (mistaken identity) by bikers and driven to the mid-west in the trunk and had to appeal three times to get his in Morristown.
Additionally NJ Police are currently supposed to Approve or Deny (with reason) Firearms ID cards and pistol permits in 60 days or less. I know people who have waited close to a year for pistol permits and up to 8 months for ID cards. NJ doesn't enforce the laws they create already. I do think you have the correct idea however.

Sadly the Theater in CO. has a policy forbidding Firearms in their theater, even if you have a carry permit. I think this sad event may have ended differently had people been able to fire back.

Matt, I'm all for getting rid of "real" assault weapons. No hunter needs an inaccurate Uzi or any FULL Automatic weapon to hunt. However my little Ruger 10/22 is considered a plinkster with a 10 round magazine, however if I put a 15 round magazine some want to call it an assault weapon. That's ridiculous in my opinion. The same goes for my pistols, 10 rounds = OK, 15 = Assault weapon. NJ Politicians just love to go off have cocked and create laws that don’t work. The reason there is so much violence in Chicago is the criminals know the public is unarmed and the Police are under staffed. Remember when seconds counts, the Police are just minutes away. A gun isn’t good or evil, the person is.

First of the definition of an assault weapon is VERY VERY loose. As Ed stated a target pistol with 1 round too many turns into an "assault weapon". As a gun collector I like my "assault weapons". I collect them just as you would collect stamps or bottle caps. Do I NEED them? No. Do you NEED a car? No, take the bus it gets you there.

Also, when heading to that movie theater I would be way more concerned about getting killed in a car crash or dieing because your doctor prescribed you the wrong dosage of your meds or possibly having a heart attack while watching the movie. All of those are more likely to kill you than some wack job.

Another note...Do you really think criminals follow laws? They will get guns even if there was a national ban on them. Also another fact...if you have a criminal record you CANNOT get guns. Period. The end. Criminals don't go out to get an FID, get fingerprinted, pay the 60 bucks, wait for god knows how long to get a gun.

I think the only real reform that needs to be made is changing some of the draconian gun laws like the rest of the country. Other than that I think NJ does a pretty good job at keeping track of where it's LEGAL guns are. Unless you have been through the wringer trying to get a legal gun in NJ, you don't understand how many checks there are.

Are you really worried that you will be "enslaved" by the United States Government?

Jon – You saw Trayvon beating Zimmerman?!? Call the Sanford Police now!

You are so right in your observation “to bear” - in fact - Justice Scalia agrees and is in fact the only person that can something bigger to help ward off the aliens that Max warned us about above …. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/29/602491/scalia-rocket-launcher/

Point taken on Syria and Libya- my fellow patriot! Every citizen needs to protect themselves from their government. BTW – can anyone tell me how much it’ll cost me to park my Apache helicopter at Essex County Airport? Apparently I can’t park it in my backyard (pool gets in the way) which means I won’t be able to respond as fast when Obama’s aliens come for us. Shame.

OK lets be rational.

If the people who need these automatic weapons claim that they need them to protect themselves from the US government, then these are people who are probably too irrational to own guns at all. What are they going to do, start shooting at national guardsmen or policemen based on some perceived threat or injustice.

If the justification is that Americans are in the same situation as people who have never lived in a free society (like the Syrians and the Libyans) that seems pretty weak. They needed them to rise up against dictators who have ruled with an iron fist for decades. Is that really the position that Americans are in?

Jon,
I think the Tavon Martin case goes beyond the scope of this debate, and choose to wait for the the court case to find out exactly what happened. But I don't need to be told the meaning of the word "bear" as it relates to the Second Amendment. What any of that has to do with Syria and Libya I do not know. Those are revolutions. If you are in the business of violently overthrowing the government, what is the significance of the law? Since you strike me as a conservative, and not a radical, I presume you have no revolutionary intentions and therefore keep the law. Do you think we so be allowed to carry AK-47s here, and if so for what purpose? Do you think an AK-47 toting electorate will keep the peace?

Yes, I think if Americans routinely carried AK47s for the purpose of maintaing peace we could very easily fall into chaotic situations. Note, I'm talking about a gun toting society, not a guy owing society. I don't know that the '90s assault weapons ban failed. It was allowed to expire due to political pressure. Did it save lives, I don't know. There is no way of knowing that. We can't prove what didn't happen would have happened in the absence of the ban. But you still didn't answer my question, you just fell to a defensive response. Do you think we should be allowed to carry AK47s? The real question is, do you, as an apparent conservative, see no limits on arms under the Second Amendment?

Well said on all your points Jon.
These anti-gun people are not rational. Plenty of people own semi-automatic weapons and we have no problems.
I heard that in NYC you can only get a handgun permit if you are a property or business owner. If that's the case that is the biggest act of discrimination i've ever seen! Law abiding citizens in the projects are subject to being victimized by criminals and gang members with no recourse. Hmmm - sounds like the democrats policy of "no guns for negroes" after the civil war, which took away a freed man's right to protect himself (especially when the KKK came calling). Greatest bloodshed in Chicago is probably innocent African Americans.

Jon,
There is chaos Jon. There was chaos in the theatre in Aurora, there was was chaos in the temple, there was chaos at Columbine, there is chaos in our cities when children are killed in crossfire by guns. I am talking about the type of guns that no one has a reason to have: automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons. Why should anyone own a gun that is designed solely for the purpose of killing people?

Second, no one is trying to capitalize on this tragic situation. Mr. Arvanites sees a problem and has proposed that we do something to rectify this issue so that we can maybe one day stop gun violence so we don't have to mourn the deaths of innocent Americans on American soil.

It would be like saying "The economy crashed and financially devastated families across the country. We shouldn't talk about it though, because we don't want to 'capitalize' on the situation."

Problems need to be solved.

People die from gun violence every single day. Those are just some of the more high profile examples. So let's try this again. Why should any non-military or non-law enforcement every be allowed to purchase an automatic or semi-automatic weapon? If you look at other industrialized nations with stricter gun laws, gun violence is significantly lower.