Guns Guns Guns

Should we or should we not have more federal control over firearms? This has been a debate at the top of the charts for a good 20 years now, and there is usually a flare whenever some violent crime happens. Therefore I would like to take a moment, and ask for a moment of silence for the fallen and victimized. ... Thank you! My empathy is sincere to the victims of any violent crime, and I do not intend to belittle what they went through in any way. In fact, I find that victims of violent crimes share the same opposite opinions as most political activists who voice what they think. The difference is that they draw on their own experience and are more passionate about their resolve. Let's take a look at the two opposing Gun Control opinions.

Gun Control Advocates claim that more Gun Control will limit availability to high risk individuals such as criminals, children, and the mentally disturbed. When I was in high school, a teacher of mine argued for gun control due to the idea that we do not live in the 17th and 18th centuries anymore, and therefore do not need firearms like they did. Her reasoning was sound as when I go to the store for a Mountain Dew, I very rarely have to defend myself against warring Native Americans or bears. There are of course a wide variety of opinions from complete prohibition to simply more strict registration requirements. State laws are currently in effect which cover almost everything in varying degrees. Federally, we adhere to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (pdf) (Summary of the gun control act of 1968) which covers a few basic rules for the states to follow. The following is taken from the Summary.

The basic objectives of Title I of the Gun Control Act of 1968 were to ban mail-order sales of firearms and ammunition, confine the purchase of firearms to the buyer's state of residence, and prohibit certain classes of persons from purchasing, receiving or transporting firearms or ammunition in interstate commerce. Specifically, Title I prohibits dealers from selling any firearm or ammunition to any person who is:

a. convicted of or under indictment
b. for a felon a fugitive
c. adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to any mental institution.
d. addicted to or an unlawful user of marihuana or a stimulant, depressant, or narcotic drug.
e. less than eighteen years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle
f. less than twenty-one years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle
g. a non resident of the State in which the licensee's place of business is located
h. an alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States
i. dishonorably discharged from the armed forces
j. subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner
k. convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Anti Gun Control Advocates are the complete flipside of the coin. Fueled with the argument that Gun Control laws do NOT keep guns out of the hands of high risk individuals, but instead inhibits lawfully abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Some advocates would claim that if everyone owned a gun there would be a general crime deterrent as no one would know who is armed and who is not. Anti Gun Control advocates also believe that it is their right to own a gun. They call upon the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights to be precise.


Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms.

"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."

Being the studious critic that I am, I'm going to rip this amendment apart and analyze every single word. Naa, just kidding, but each cluster of course.

A well regulated Militia~ In the beginning all able bodied men joined the town militia just in case their was a problem. To date, we have militias who have their own idealism. The difference is the government does not call upon modern day militias to solve problems which is sad in some cases, as a few militias are very well trained. It's not sad in other cases, as members of some militias are fanatical adrenalin seekers with a heroism and/or patriot complex.

The merits of both arguments are pretty good. Imagine if every city had their own militia trained in search and rescue, weapons and tactics, and other various skills. Should a child go missing, at least 50% of the militia would be ready at the drop of a hat; waiting for orders from local law enforcement. On the flipside: militias are not regulated by the local, state, or federal government. Considering this, should there be an accident or anything, who would be held liable? A person suing would go after the government as they would give the biggest paycheck, and it would fly because government officials would be the ones giving orders in such a situation.

being necessary to the security of a free State~ This statement obviously is surrounded by context clues. Preceded by a well regulated militia, with a suffix of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. What is necessary for security in a free state? Is it a well regulated militia or the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Honestly, how many lost people could we have found if the government used well regulated militias? But we don't use them any more, because the government has plenty of man power to get the job done. Which actually gives us peace of mind and we don't have to defend ourselves so much. A lot of people are cozy in this situation. "That's the Governments job" they say. Following this statement is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. How does this translate to the security of a free state? Supposedly the 9/11 hijackers were armed with ceramic knives. Do you ever wonder if the hijackers would have gotten away with it if everyone who flew was armed with a knife?

I know, it completely challenges what you've been taught. I had a swiss army knife key chain that was confiscated from me when I rode a bus a year after 9/11. The reaction was to eliminate all weapons on public transportation. So much so that the TSA was formed and now do body scans along with in-depth searches. So which is it? We haven't been hijacked since 9/11 or it hasn't made the news if we have. Does that mean the iron grip of the federal government is the answer? Or would a 767 full of armed passengers be able to get the job done?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms~ I guess it is a right. Every individual covered by the constitution of the United States has the right to own and carry a gun. This being the main sentence that comes under attack, lets examine it's meaning here. The right? What is covered in that right? Own and carry, just as it says. I see no right to kill others on a whim, and lets face it. Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them. But there is also the moral aspect. Human beings are extremely easy to kill. Anyone can kill with at least a few different objects within 10 feet of them. Be it a poison, blunt instrument, sharp object, or something else. Mostly, I believe we do not kill people because of the moral objection. To sum up though: The 2nd amendment provides the right to keep and bear arms, but not the right to kill.

shall not be infringed~ This must pretty important to put that in there. History has taught us that the first thing to happen before a people is enslaved is disarmament if possible. If disarming a people is impossible, conquering can be achieved with bloodshed. So which do we support, the wisdom of our forefathers, or the satisfaction of knowing that our neighbors won't shoot us because it's illegal to own a gun? This one is very difficult to determine because our forefathers thought it was so important that they reinforced it. How many other things did they reinforce with an unnecessary statement? The answer is none when looking at the Bill of Rights.

Looks like the 2nd amendment is iron clad. The debate rages on though, and which do we support?
Whenever there is senseless violence Gun Control Activists ask for something to be done. The only thing that can be done is to pass another bill. Which is odd because usually everything a Gun Control Enthusiast is asking for is already in the Gun Control Act of 1968. And then the states have different laws that vary, and along with that, city laws that vary to the widest extremes.
If guns were no longer legal would there be less suffering and death due to gun violence? Of course as guns would be in a lesser supply. But would violence be curbed? I would also caution against statistical information given by advocates of either side. Statistical information while usually factual, is biased if all statistics are not used, and they never are.