I know that I sound like I'm making fun, which, I guess in a way I am but not of the topic. I think this is a very serious topic and hope that people dont turn away just because its yet another discussion on gun control. What I do make fun of is the peoples response to the topic.
In the wake of the Newton incident, this country has unraveled at the seems over this topic. Everyone, and I do mean "EVERYONE" who is old enough to vote has an opinion about it. Where the problem lies is in the blanket generalizations. Everyone seems to think that this is cut and dried and either your a fanatical Redneck (pro-gun rights) or a pinko leftist gun-grabber (pro gun control). The United States is the Great Melting Pot. What this means is that we have citizens of all races, creeds, colors, religions and philosophies. If we know this to be fundamentally true then why are we lumping people into 2 categories. I do actually have an answer for that. the reason we have divided into two categories isnt all that hard to figure out. It's because the loudest voices are those to the extreme ends of this debate and its far easier to rally around a loud voice or idea to is closer to what you believe. Well, on this topic, I refuse to compromise my point of view and go to the loudest voice. The First Amendment is there for a reason.
Before I share my point of view, lets see if I can summarize the most vocal points of view. On one side we have those that want some gun control laws in place so that they feel more safe and on the other side we have people who wish to defend their Constitutional right to have a firearm in their possession, which makes them feel more safe. See there, you arent so different after all. You all just want to feel safe. If it's this easy then why all the animosity and mud slinging? The media is very good at twisting a story to make it more interesting and sensational. The actual problem is, both sides want to feel safe but go to extreme lengths to do so. the majority of the loud voices are saying "ALL or NOTHING" . Those fighting for gun rights cite have both the Constitution and several Supreme Court rulings on their side. Let me first drop in the exact wording of the second Amendment:
"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."
Those to the extreme right of this debate see this as "I can have any gun I want and do anything I want with my guns as long as I don't break the law". Ok, interesting take, but a little misguided. What this says is that, when it was written, the newly formed government was had a fear that if they stood up a regular military, that it could be used against the people as it was by the English. To the left of the argument, they see the word "Militia" and instantly assume that means military or National Guard. That too is a little bit off. This right was put in place by the founding father in order to give every household the ability to defend this country which includes themselves. That's what a militia is for.
The second Amendment does however say "WELL regulated". What does this mean? It means that if you are going to exercise this right then you are subject to the laws and guidelines that go with it. You can't just be a gun toting maniac as that would not be in the spirit it was written. This Amendment was written to help defend the country and a well regulated militia is a civilian community that is trained.
Now to the Liberal side who take this Amendment and focus on one word "REGULATED" . It's a great word, especially in all caps and italicized like that. Law makers love to hover around it like hungry vultures waiting for the perfect opportunity. Their answer to the question of safety is to "REGULATE" by registration and banning certain types of firearms or their subsequent modifications or addons. Registration isnt a bad start nor does it interfere with any rights however, banning of any firearm does trample the second amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The second Amendment does not specify as to type of arms, it says to keep and bear arms.
Both sides actually have valid points and ideas but neither is willing to listen. Instead, they go to their end of the argument and throw mud as hard and loud as they can. There is middle ground here people. We are a nation, united by a common belief that we have the right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" Declaration of Independence. We need to stop all this posturing, come to a general consensus then exercise our rights as Americans and tell our government how to proceed.
Now, if you haven't fallen asleep yet, here is my idea on how to deal with gun control. Remember that this is just an idea so don't stone me.
-In order to own a firearm, a citizen must obtain a firearms license.
-Licensing shall be based on these criteria: Written test of safety and firearms laws
Practical firearms test to prove proper handling
Background check to ensure legality
-every firearm shall be put into classes for the purpose of endorsement for licensing (i.e. class A firearms 50 caliber and below, semi-auto etc.)
-All firearms shall be subject to registration regardless of age.
Again, this is just an idea, not even a detailed one but it satisfies the second Amendment by offering regulation without infringing. For those who wish gun control this would mean that all of those citizens who do own firearms would be educated, with background checks you know that criminals and those with mental instability can not obtain a firearm by legal means and all "legal" firearms will be tracked. For those who wish to exercise their second Amendment, you don't have to live in fear that the government is trying to ban any firearm and with the background checks the waiting periods become a thing of the past as well as gun shows and private sales wont be under attack. I modeled this idea after I saw people using automobiles as a defense. It is true that automobiles are dangerous and are involved in more homicides than firearms. I dont know anyone who is indignant that we regulate automobiles so why not use a similar and proven method.
I have an open door policy and welcome your input. I just request that you keep it civil. Everyone's opinion has value and if you wish to be heard then you should listen to others as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment