Morgan Seale
In writing the Constitution, our Founding Fathers had no way of predicting what the Second Amendment would entail for the future. At the time it was written, “arms” meant very ineffective firearms that only shot one bullet at a time. Furthermore, guns were meant to be used to arm militias in an era when violent invasion from foreign powers was a very real concern. Now, automatic weapons and ammunition capable of piercing law enforcement protective gear abound and the only remaining semblance of a militia are street gangs.
According to the FBI, gun violence accounted for 69% of homicides in the US in 2013. Most of these deaths were not in self defense, which is what the Second Amendment looked to guarantee the American people. In recent years, incredible advancements in firearm technology have also allowed for an unsettling increase in mass murders. According to Christopher Ingraham from the Washington Post there have been 294 mass shootings so far in 2015 alone.
Despite the evident need for urgency to stem this proliferation of bloodshed at the tip of bullets, Congress continually seems to be unable to arrive at any real solution. The Democrats are looking to solve the problem by restricting access to firearms and creating a more rigorous process by which people purchase guns. Hillary Clinton recently called upon to"make sure the irresponsible and the criminal and the mentally ill don’t get guns.” Her views are not necessarily representative of all of her fellow Democrats but are representative of a progressive majority who recognize the problem of the mentally ill and reckless enjoying easier and easier access to guns.
Republicans, on the other hand, tend to be less proactive in their policy. Their theory is that by removing restrictions on gun ownership and purchasing it will lead to a decline in crime. This is to say that the more people who have guns, the more likely it is for responsible gun owners to stop criminals. They think if people had easier access to guns they would be able to more easily protect themselves and others. Regarding the most recent mass shooting in Oregon, Republicans tried to argue that since the school was a gun free zone the victims were unfortunately unprotected and vulnerable, or, as Donald Trump audaciously phrased it, every student was a "sitting duck."
The real problem is neither gun-free zones or oppressive restrictions on purchase. The real problem is the availability of guns. Something has to be done about this and right now Democrats are the only people who offer any real solution. They want to stop violence at the root of the problem, while Republicans want to let more people have guns to be used in cases of self defense. Guns are the most dangerous weapons Americans have access to and should not be given out to people purely on the basis of a person’s Second Amendment right. Giving anyone access to guns is not actually solving the problem. If guns are the cause of the high crime rate, how could a reasonable person think that providing more guns would reduce that? It would just lead to more guns floating around and become even easier for people, whether they are part of organized crime or troubled individuals, to obtain them illegally. Currently there is no law requiring gun hobbyists to conduct background checks when selling their guns. There is an appalling lack of restriction on these weapons. There needs to be restrictions on this so as to prevent people from illegally gaining access to guns, and the only way to do this is with the help of the federal government passing specific policies addressing this issue.
According to the FBI, gun violence accounted for 69% of homicides in the US in 2013. Most of these deaths were not in self defense, which is what the Second Amendment looked to guarantee the American people. In recent years, incredible advancements in firearm technology have also allowed for an unsettling increase in mass murders. According to Christopher Ingraham from the Washington Post there have been 294 mass shootings so far in 2015 alone.
Despite the evident need for urgency to stem this proliferation of bloodshed at the tip of bullets, Congress continually seems to be unable to arrive at any real solution. The Democrats are looking to solve the problem by restricting access to firearms and creating a more rigorous process by which people purchase guns. Hillary Clinton recently called upon to"make sure the irresponsible and the criminal and the mentally ill don’t get guns.” Her views are not necessarily representative of all of her fellow Democrats but are representative of a progressive majority who recognize the problem of the mentally ill and reckless enjoying easier and easier access to guns.
Republicans, on the other hand, tend to be less proactive in their policy. Their theory is that by removing restrictions on gun ownership and purchasing it will lead to a decline in crime. This is to say that the more people who have guns, the more likely it is for responsible gun owners to stop criminals. They think if people had easier access to guns they would be able to more easily protect themselves and others. Regarding the most recent mass shooting in Oregon, Republicans tried to argue that since the school was a gun free zone the victims were unfortunately unprotected and vulnerable, or, as Donald Trump audaciously phrased it, every student was a "sitting duck."
The real problem is neither gun-free zones or oppressive restrictions on purchase. The real problem is the availability of guns. Something has to be done about this and right now Democrats are the only people who offer any real solution. They want to stop violence at the root of the problem, while Republicans want to let more people have guns to be used in cases of self defense. Guns are the most dangerous weapons Americans have access to and should not be given out to people purely on the basis of a person’s Second Amendment right. Giving anyone access to guns is not actually solving the problem. If guns are the cause of the high crime rate, how could a reasonable person think that providing more guns would reduce that? It would just lead to more guns floating around and become even easier for people, whether they are part of organized crime or troubled individuals, to obtain them illegally. Currently there is no law requiring gun hobbyists to conduct background checks when selling their guns. There is an appalling lack of restriction on these weapons. There needs to be restrictions on this so as to prevent people from illegally gaining access to guns, and the only way to do this is with the help of the federal government passing specific policies addressing this issue.
0 comments:
Post a Comment