Greetings all!
This post comes on a holiday for Americans, notably
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. The holiday also coincides with the presidential
inauguration ceremonies. Today, we as Americans are intended to celebrate a man
and what he did to bring us together and fight against a system which divided
us so unjustly. And while the spirit of his fight lives on today, perfection is
far from being realized. In particular, a debate over restrictions on firearms
has reopened as of late, and it starkly points towards how separate we view
things as basic as the Constitution on which we base our nation. As such, I
felt it prudent to address the topic in the most useful manner: as a
constitutional argument. In light of the points made by both sides of this
debate, I see it necessary to present why some points are definitely wrong and
some are definitely right. I will not be addressing small points of hypocrisy
on either side, as I intend to avoid small issues. This week’s quote is from
Mohammad Mosaddegh, one of very few democratically elected Iranian prime
ministers prior to the institution of the Shah or the theocratic government we
are familiar with now.
Moving on, much of the gun rights debate centers on
the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The original text of the amendment is
as follows: “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.” While brief, the basic intention of the amendment is clear; that
all Americans should have the general right to firearms as part of the
Constitutional Republic we have created. The issue in contention is how liberal
or restricted these rights should be. There are some cut and dry things that
absolutely any sane person can agree on. First, that our gun laws should not be
completely unrestricted, nor should the opposite case be true. People should
not be able to have fully functioning tanks and nuclear weapons, yet people
should also be able to hunt with something other than a toy water gun.
To begin, I’d like to remind all those people
shouting that the Second Amendment absolutely guarantees them the right to any
gun they reasonably want. Yes, the Constitution does guarantee certain rights
to all people in America. You have the right to free speech, the right to a
speedy trial by jury, and the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. However,
something we seem to have forgotten is that attached to each right is a
responsibility. While you have a right to free speech, you have the
responsibility to ensure that speech does not directly endanger others or
infringe on others’ rights in any way. You have the right to a trial by jury,
but you have the responsibility to show up in time and to participate in said
trial in a legal manner. These responsibilities are a part of life, a part of
the Constitution, and are necessary to maintain a peaceful, civil society.
This connection between rights and responsibilities exists
for the use of firearms as well. You have the right to own and possess
firearms, this is absolutely true. You also have the responsibility to not
endanger others with those firearms, and the responsibility to not infringe on
other people’s rights with those firearms. This is a key element of the right
to firearms that seems to have been removed from the entire debate; the
responsibilities attached to every single bullet. You may be able to hold onto
a gun in public, but you cannot take it out and point it at people whenever you
like. This directly endangers them, even if you do not intend to shoot them. You
have the right to own a hunting rifle, but the responsibility to use it only
for hunting. You have the right to own a weapon for self-defense if you feel it
necessary, but you have the responsibility to prevent those weapons from being
used for anything but self-defense. You must also prevent your firearms from
infringing upon the rights of others. You cannot keep a person from speaking or
expressing their religion with your weapons, in any way. This applies to all of
society, and we must remember that.
At the center of our gun debate is how far
restrictions on the right to bear arms should go. Before I get into the
specifics of how far regulations should go, let me explain why there should be
regulations in the first place. Most of us can quite honestly say that humanity
is imperfect. We do not treat others in the purest of ways. We envy those with
something we want, and when we get it we only want more. We wish horrible
things upon others in vengeance, and rarely give to those who truly need or
deserve it. My point is that we are unpredictable, and that given a chance one
of us always does something wrong, no matter what group we are part of. Therefore,
we must be willing to provide basic rules to society to prevent humanity as a
group from performing actions which damage us. This is why there are laws
against driving drunk, laws against killing people, etc. Laws exist because we
are imperfect and we must limit ourselves to prevent awful things from
happening as best we can. True, criminals will always break laws. But that is
no reason to abolish those laws.
And now we come to the grueling part: how far gun
restrictions should go. Guns are incredibly dangerous, and that is why it is
very easy to suggest large restrictions on them. At the same time, these
restrictions must not infringe on the personal right to use a gun for
reasonable purposes. There are only two reasonable purposes towards owning a
firearm: hunting for sport or sustenance, and self-defense. It is obvious that
we must be willing to increase our support for better mental health in this
nation; that is clear. What matters even more when restricting guns is keeping
them out of the hands of those that can cause damage without having these
issues. Any person can make mistakes, and with guns those mistakes turn deadly
very quickly. And in either of the purposes for owning a gun, I will suggest
that no form of semi-automatic weapon is necessary.
In hunting, semi-automatic weapons are absolutely
pointless. Remember that the deer can’t shoot you back, and has no idea what a
gun even is. If you can’t hit a target without multiple rounds that fire at
unimaginable rates, chances are that you’re just a bad shot. Instead of forcing
people to live in a world with dangerous weaponry intended to kill, in this
instance it is better to learn to accept your level of skill or try to improve.
Either way, the semi-automatic weapon you’ve got is just not reasonable for
hunting, unless you plan on hunting down people.
Self-defense is typically considered a less clear
area on semi-automatic weapons, but I cannot see why. It is reasonable to have
a gun for self-defense, this I can see. If absolutely necessary, I cannot
object to someone arming themselves just in case the worst happens. However,
semi-automatic weapons are not meant for defense, they are intended for
offense. If thirty people assault you, a semi-automatic weapon would be a great
thing to have. But if you honestly expect huge groups of people to assault you,
you’re just being paranoid. We do not live in a nation where huge gangs exist
in every city, suburb, and rural town, just waiting for someone to walk down
the street without powerful weaponry in their possession. True, crime does
exist in America. However, it is not so prolific as to warrant use of weapons
intended for military-style offense. I’m fairly certain most people can survive
any typical assault just by owning a .44 magnum revolver.
This is all I propose for now, outside of more
extensive background checks and limits on the sale and purchase of weaponry.
However, I firmly believe that the elimination of semi-automatic weaponry
should be our top priority, as these weapons are not intended for anything wholesome.
They are intended for death.
That is the end of this, and I hope I’ve provided
clear reasoning for my wishes. I am always open for contact through the
comments and my email of zerospintop@live.com.
I am also open for contact on my Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Steam, and
DeviantArt accounts if necessary. Good night, and this is KnoFear, signing off.
No comments:
Post a Comment