After that last post everyone must be feeling that I am a "liberal" or at least a "progressive." You are probably not going to think that so much after this post. Besides, there are only so many times that I can let my roommate call me a "Democrat" for embracing tax reform before I need to flex some conservative credentials.
Early last year, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was critically wounded in a vicious shooting in Tucson, Arizona by a deranged lunatic. After this happened, just like after the 2007 Virginia Tech shootings, debate was started up about gun control, or the lack thereof, in the United States. While I certainly many others felt that this shooting was appalling, I feel that many laws on the federal level that have been enacted restrict a citizen's Second Amendment right to bear arms. In my view, the debate over gun rights should be centered on the state and local level. Why should Wyoming have the same type of gun laws that Washington, D.C. does? Undue federal regulation makes no sense from a purely practical standpoint.
I don't believe that any firearm or "class" of firearms should be outright "banned" by the federal government. Banning "assault weapons" and especially handguns won't stop criminals from being able to get their hands on these weapons, it will enable a "black market" for these types of firearms to take hold--without any background checks taking place. Additionally, the National Institute of Justice has stated that "assault weapons" were used in only about 2% of gun crimes. Does it really make senses to outright ban something when they have hardly any effect on violence in America? Is it fair to punish the vast majority of gun owners who are law abiding because these firearms are given a "scary" name? This argument is preposterous. Maybe we should be more focused on the core reason for violence in America: that the vast majority of people who resort to violence do so because they are in poverty. Maybe the lack of upward mobility in this country is what is inspiring some to do violence to others.
I don't believe that any firearm or "class" of firearms should be outright "banned" by the federal government. Banning "assault weapons" and especially handguns won't stop criminals from being able to get their hands on these weapons, it will enable a "black market" for these types of firearms to take hold--without any background checks taking place. Additionally, the National Institute of Justice has stated that "assault weapons" were used in only about 2% of gun crimes. Does it really make senses to outright ban something when they have hardly any effect on violence in America? Is it fair to punish the vast majority of gun owners who are law abiding because these firearms are given a "scary" name? This argument is preposterous. Maybe we should be more focused on the core reason for violence in America: that the vast majority of people who resort to violence do so because they are in poverty. Maybe the lack of upward mobility in this country is what is inspiring some to do violence to others.
In recent years, the Supreme Court has handed down two landmark rulings in favor of citizens being able to possess handguns in their homes for self defense purposes. In "District of Columbia V. Heller", a landmark ruling in 2008, the Court affirmed the right to legally bare arms for self defense in federal districts. Second Amendment rights were expanded in 2010 with the "McDonald v. Chicago" ruling that extended the principal of the "Heller" ruling to individual states. Clearly, the high court stood by the principal that the Second Amendment should not be infringed. Although many may think that there is no reason to own a gun, it is fundamentally wrong to reject a constitutional principal that has been enshrined for over 200 years. Just because some view a particular legal provision as "inconvenient" does not mean that we shouldn't honor the legality and the principal of that provision. The only way to change this would be to amend the constitution to repeal the Second Amendment. Good luck getting that through Congress.
Although I favor being able to own a firearm, some of the rhetoric from the pro-gun lobby goes too far and defies common sense. Take, for example, the National Rifle Association's Institute For Legislative Action's statement that it "opposes legislation to prohibit the possession of firearms by people on the (FBI Terrorist) watchlist because the FBI will not say who is on the list or why", an assertion that I find absolutely absurd. Being able to exercise one's Second Amendment rights should be both legal and common sensical.
Sources:
-National Institute of Justice's Study on the Effect of the 1994 Assault Weapon's Ban
-The NRA's "Firearm Fact Card"
-Washington Post article on "District of Columbia v. Heller"
-PBS Interview concerning "McDonald v. Chicago"
Although I favor being able to own a firearm, some of the rhetoric from the pro-gun lobby goes too far and defies common sense. Take, for example, the National Rifle Association's Institute For Legislative Action's statement that it "opposes legislation to prohibit the possession of firearms by people on the (FBI Terrorist) watchlist because the FBI will not say who is on the list or why", an assertion that I find absolutely absurd. Being able to exercise one's Second Amendment rights should be both legal and common sensical.
Sources:
-National Institute of Justice's Study on the Effect of the 1994 Assault Weapon's Ban
-The NRA's "Firearm Fact Card"
-Washington Post article on "District of Columbia v. Heller"
-PBS Interview concerning "McDonald v. Chicago"
"It's not guns who kill people, it's people who kill people"
ReplyDeleteI 100% agree with you on this issue; guns have a bad connotation in society but if a person wants to kill someone else he WILL find a way, gun or not. I also agree with you that if owning firearms are outlawed, then the black market will increase and thus guns will be distributed more dangerously to people who should not have them.
We all have a implicit right to self-defense and one method of doing that is to own a firearm. In reality, guns make us feel safe and the government should not have a right to take that safety away from us. Most people use guns for "worst case senarios" like a house intrusion or for recreational shooting. I see nothing wrong with owning firearms. Crimes will always exist, whether guns are legal or not.