Wednesday, July 15, 2020

The Gun Issue in the United States.

    The Second Amendment states, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed ". The reason the topic comes to mind as of recently with the protests, riots, and whatnot is that more and more people have been misinformed by politicians and certain anti-gun movements, such as, "March for our lives", to the extent of which people in the U.S. have become more ignorant as to guns actually work. During the last decade senate and house of rep. members have been pushing for gun reforms( and Usually they are democrats) such as Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Beto O'Rourke, and countless others. A phrase these politicians usually throw out is that they say that the  weapon of mass shooters are semi auto rifles, but this simply isn't the case due to the fact that about 70% of all gun crimes including, mass shootings, are committed with pistols. However, because this evidence does not apply to the narrative that the legislators who push for gun control, it is majorly ignored. Another term tossed around by politicians who support gun reform is " fully semi-automatic" which essentially means absolutely nothing. Fully semi- automatic really just means semi automatic which is when a rifle can only fire as fast as you pull the trigger. And when it comes to access of fully automatic rifles in the U.S. it is barely non existent. This is due to the fact that after the rise of the mafia in the 1920s-30s and their use of Tommy guns ( automatic sub machine guns) a new law was made called " The National Firearms Act"  in which the U.S. imposed a large scale restriction on the sale of automatic firearms, other weapons and a tax as well as making it harder to receive an automatic firearm without proper registration and a specific license. 
    Furthermore, it becomes annoying when people all of a sudden think they become experts on the firearm issue after seeing someone do a heavily edited video online with inspirational quotes and whatnot. That is not the case however, most people in the U.S. aren't homicidal maniacs (except Florida) and simply use their second amendment right to protect their property, families, and/or themselves. Even knowing this some young misinformed kid will be wondering the streets asking the government to take the american peoples guns because one person decided to go on a killing spree so therefore everyone with a gun becomes evil. And some like to point that the theory of a good guy with a gun is bogus but this example doesn't have much to back it seeing as how back in 2019 a man shot a mass shooter from 40 feet away after the shooter fired at two civilians. 
     To conclude, the last paragraph above can be seen as a rant, but the first paragraph overall is mainly factual. To state my entire belief on the gun issue in the U.S., I believe in background checks in order to acquire a firearm, but do not agree with banning firearms such as the famous "boogeyman" of a rifle the AR-15. Saying all this some people will try and continue the argument that people do not need these rifles for protection but you can all argue that in the comment section. Overall I believe that the second amendment should be protected at all costs and that before politicians or people make an argument about guns that they understand how firearms work.
     So my question to you is how you feel overall about the issue, and what approach should be taken when making laws about firearms? Do you think politicians should or should not infringe with the second amendment ( and before you say that they can't, remember that amendments can be amended)? Should we restrict all firearms, some firearms, or none at all? 






3 comments:

  1. After reading this post, it is clear you are passionate about this topic. While you support an interesting argument, your delivery isn’t the best and I would like to see a post in the future on this topic. That said, I’d like to discuss two things: a personal interpretation of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and how the opposing sides of the gun debate can come to a consensus.

    The original farmers of the Constitution added the Second Amendment to allow citizens to possess weapons. They did this because, during the revolution era, the British government had confiscated the arms of the American colonists and halted imports of firearms. The Amendment states, as you provided, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A section that I would like to emphasize is “a well regulated militia…” because that holds importance when discussing this situation. In my eyes, the militia that the framers reference are the free people of the United States. The Amendment states that the militia should be “well regulated.” In other words, the people—the militia—will possess guns to maintain their safety, but the militia must be properly guided.

    (Before diving into a possible solution, let us discuss how the US is infamous for issues related to firearms. This is highlighted in the following:
    American Student: “That’s why your teeth look bad!”
    British Student: “At least I don’t get shot at school.”
    American Student: πŸ‘ πŸ‘„πŸ‘ πŸ§ΏπŸ‘„πŸ§Ώ
    With that being said, let us resume the conversation.)

    Now that an interpretation has been given, the United States can settle this debate. Let it be known beforehand that there are very, very few who wish to take away the firearms of the people. Rather, those who advocate for reformation demand that firearms be properly regulated. The best way, as of this time, to regulate firearms so that the people may access is to create an education and testing system. In January, I took a test in order to obtain my Minor’s Learner’s Driving Permit. In order to even apply, I had to take around 20 hours of classes that taught about the rules of driving. At the DMV, I had to provide proof that I had taken the course and passed, along with proof of my age, residency, and other information. I passed the test and was awarded my permit. However, I could not legally drive until I had taken one driving lesson with an instructor and the instructor had signed my permit. All current drivers had to undertake a similar process. Car accidents still occur, but they are much less likely than had there been no regulations on who can drive a vehicle. Now, would it be unreasonable if we applied similar restrictions to the sale of firearms? Such restrictions would not prevent 100% of gun misuse incidents, but it would insure that those who carry firearms were well-informed on all rules pertaining to guns. Moreover, a mental health check up would be necessary. Some argue that those who commit mass shootings have “mental health issues.”Although I don’t agree with such an excuse, it would settle the minds of most that those who are “high-risk” do not obtain firearms. These are just ideas and I would appreciate academic discourse in response if you agree or disagree with this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Forgive me for the late response. I believe you mentioned the first part about having a command structure later on in the paragraph but I would appreciate some clarification so we both can understand each other. The framers of the constitution when it came to the militia segment intended that the militia should be run by the people to protect the people which inhabit the state of which it states they are to protect, and that is what I believe we can agree on. Now when it comes to the paragraph after the joke, I have a rebuttal. The argument being that gun restrictions already exist and were presented by the Firearms act of 1934(which was a way to combat the mafia from using tommy guns and other automatic guns but didn't actually do much good) There were a few other assortments of firearm policies later on such as Reagan's Federal "Assault Weapons" ban which essentially banned any manufacturing of automatic weapons after 1994 which was passed in the senate during the Clinton admin and would last ten years until expiration. As of today most of the rifles on the ban list have been converted to semi auto, and the only automatic guns remaining being the ones existing prior to the ban , but being heavily overpriced to where they can cost more than a car. As far as it goes for registration and obtaining firearms, it varies from state to state, but if I'm not mistaken all states require a background check and proper registration to own a firearm. If they don't follow these regulations then the sellers FFL( Firearms Federal License) which is granted to people by the ATF after certain requirements are met which are to long to list so I wont get into but they're free to see on google. So after a large amount of paperwork the license is granted and a person can acquire certain firearms and sell said firearms.

    ReplyDelete
  3. However, the argument I'm presenting isn't about the how to acquire, but rather that no firearm should be restricted by the government. I say this because the framers of the constitution knew well that firearm technology would improve. Even during their time the framers were well known fans of certain firearms that some would say don't seem appropriate for the time such as the repeating flintlock that was invented in 1630 or the pepper box revolver which fired more than one round; this essentially destroying the theory that there were only single shot rifles then. The only reason military didn't use these weapons on a large scale was because of the cost and manufacturing rate. The reason I bring this up to defend my argument is because these were used by civilians as well as military. With this said the entire point of the second amendment is to grant the citizens the right to own similar if not the same weapons the government has to ensure the people aren't at a disadvantage if the government were to ever become tyrannical. Hell these weapons could also be used to defend peoples and state property if a large mob decides to burn down, destroy, or vandalize a persons property or the state property. Fortunately our government isn't yet a completely tyrannical government which is trying to strip us of all our rights (and before you say I'm one of those " I won't wear a mask cause my freedom" people, I'm not since I find that argument idiotic). As for when it comes to the argument you presented about registration of firearms I don't agree with the government knowing about someone having firearms since they know who to target if it amends the second amendment. So for the sake of coming to a compromise I'll agree to some form of background check and tax, but most people don't have the time for firearm training since those who buy are just regular citizens looking to protect themselves, but its important to know your firearms although they shouldn't be restricted from owning one since it isn't a privilege to own a firearm like owning a license to drive a vehicle, but rather a right granted in the constitution. But for the most part I agree with you.
    As for my response when it comes to the meme paragraph, I didn't care for it much as I see it on reddit constantly, but as Chang from community said while wearing a Mexican sombrero, " I'll allow it".
    Sorry for the cut off the blog wouldn't let me post the entire thing in one comment.

    ReplyDelete