| 
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

Problem Section: Gun Control

Page history last edited by mberry 13 years, 10 months ago

previous section 'Types of Federalism'                                                                                                   next section 'In the Media Today'

 

 

Gun Control

 

A Brief and Recent History on Gun Control

          The 2007 court case Parker vs District of Columbia is evidence of the recent attack on the Second Amendment. An attack which has been going on since even before the 'right to bear arms' was first included in the Constitution. Washington D.C. has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States which prohibit the private gun ownership by anyone other than law enforcement. In the landmark case Parker v. D.C. Shelly Parker felt that her 2nd Amendment rights and her right to defend herself were being denied. The issues at hand were whether or not to ban hand gun ownership, except for active and retired law enforcement, and people who registered their hand guns before 1976, to prohibit the carrying of handguns anywhere, which includes ones home, without a license, and to require that all lawfully owned firearms be locked, disassembled, or unloaded.  D.C. argued that nowhere in the Constitution does it suggest that individuals have the right to bear arms, only that they may bear arms when serving in the army as militia, or some other military or governmental force that requires it.  However, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 2 to 1 that D.C.'s gun laws were unconstitutional. They stated that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" and that "once it is determined-as we have done-that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District  to ban them."  In the opinion of the Court, the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment. The rights to the Second Amendment were in effect even before the formation of the new government under the Constitution by which people had the right to bear arms for defense against lawlessness, hunting, or the threat of a tyrannical government. This amendment entitled people to bear arms even for non militia purposes and the by the District of Columbia's regulation, this right was denied to the general population. The judicial system however, overruled D.C.'s laws and restored the right to gun ownership to the people.(1)  

 

Here is a recent article entitled 'Several States Ease Restrictions on Gun Control'.(2)  Where you stand?

2004 Gun related Deaths and Injury in U.S. table

Type of Gun Related Death Homicide Suicide Accident Police Intervention Total
Amount Dead 11,624 16,907 649 N/A 29,569

(12)

2005 Gun related Deaths and Injury in U.S. table

 

Type of Gun Related Death Homicide Suicide Accident

Police

Intervention

Total
Amount dead 12,352 17,002 789 221 30,694

(11)

 

2006 Gun related Deaths and Injury in U.S. table 

Type of Gun Related Death Homicide Suicide Accident  Police Intervention  Total 
Amount Dead 12,791  16,883 642  360  30,896 

(10) 

 

Note: Those unaccounted for were considered 'intent unknown.' There were 221 in 2005, and 220 in 2006. 

 

 

Just as the founders debated the Constitution, many of its components remain controversial and debatable.  We are going to demonstrate for you the ways in which the Second Amendment, which is one of the more hotly debated elements of the Constitution, is debated by extreme partisans.

 

A Democratic Party/Liberal Interpretation

     The Democratic Party's view is relatively straight forward and easy to comprehend (at least for some). They believe that the Constitution is subject to interpretation. It was, after all, written over two hundred years ago. Back then a firearm was a large and cumbersome object that was very hard to conceal, and took a long time to use. The flintlock musket could fire perhaps 4 rounds a minute. Added to that, this was written in a time when the army of the United States consisted of local militias who were called up in times of need to fight against invaders. It would be rather futile if the militias were not allowed to bear arms but were still expected to fight of foreign armies. Soon after, the militia was phased out and was replaced with a full time professional army. Since then the need for privately owned firearms has steadily decreased. It is true that we live in the land of the free, but the dangers of anyone being free to own a weapon must be carefully weighed against the potential risk of one psycho killing large numbers of people with one "legally" owned weapon. The question is: Freedom or safety?

 

     Since the  1700s, technology, and especially gun technology, has increased dramatically. The addition of fully automatic weapons, the availability of a spring loaded clip, and the usage of cartridges attached to the bullet has made it much easier to inflict multiple fatalities in a much shorter span of time than with the primitive weapons of the early Industrial Revolution. The creators of the Constitution created the amendment system so that, when issues arose in the future concerning the safety of certain ideas, then the document could be amended to better protect the citizens of America. It has been proven that the ban of firearms is beneficial to societies. Several countries in Europe have a ban of most types of firearms. The rate of violent crime is just as high, but the fatality rate is much lower. If injured, one is much more likely to die of a gunshot wound than by a club or knife injury. It is unsafe and literal madness to allow virtually anyone to carry around and conceal a automatic firearm. That is a perfect invitation for a violent crime and rampent homicides. A common claim of the pro-gun activists is that various families need weapons for hunting as a means of life. That is very doubtful when they buy a machine gun when an ordinary hunting rifle is just as proficient and much safer. Then there are those who insist on keeping a gun in their house because they fear for the safety of their families. Doesn't that sound slightly odd to anyone else? In the small chance that an armed intruder does break into their house, they propose to shoot him? This is madness! It is far more likely that you will be killed by an armed intruder if you are shooting at him than not. They will fire back in self defense. Irregardless of who is right or wrong, someone will get shot and possible killed. Think about it from another prospective. If guns had been banned, Virginia Tech would not have happend. By allowing people to own guns the government is giving its unofficial blessing to do everything one could possibly think of with a gun, except shooting the gun. And as we all know, it only takes one deluded mind, to put a small amount of pressure on the trigger, and to set a series of events in motion that could lead to the deaths of dozens. In a perfect world this would be an acceptable option to have. Unfortunately, in the harsh reality, there are enough crazy wacko people out there who want to cause harm, pain, and death to those around them. And by allowing them to own these weapons you giving your permission for the deaths of 95000 people each year. As we all know, there is no excuse for by-standing. You are just as much guilty as the one who fired the shot. You had ample opportunity to stop them, you choose not to, now live the rest of your life with the deaths of thousands on your conscience

 

 (3)

 

 

 

 

A Republican/Conservative  Interpretation

     The Second Amendment states that 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, however recently, and unfortunately, this amendment has been under attack by liberals and other gun-control advocates.  From a conservative viewpoint, the Second Amendment is interpreted as a guarantee of freedom, of governmental trust and belief in its people and of one's ability to protect oneself. This law, however, does not apply to all states, therefore each state can do with it what it will according to its state constitution. A state could be as restrictive as Illinois, or as nonrestrictive as Texas. By these varying degrees of restriction, I don't mean that the process of getting a permit is any less difficult, as it is very extensive and is mandated by federal law. Nor do I mean that the state remains completely oblivious and that people are running around with guns left and right in the unrestricted states. The following is the criteria that would made a person ineligible to own a gun according to federal law:

Illegal Aliens

Military persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces

Minors (under 18) for long guns and hand guns

Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for over one year

Persons subject to a restraining order

People who have renounced their citizenship

Abusers of depressants, narcotics, or stimulant drugs

Those considered to have mental illneses

Fugitives of justice

Those convicted of felonies (5)     

     As you can see it is incredibly specific as to who can own a gun and who can't.  What danger could a person pose, other than defending themselves, if they do not fall under any of the criteria that would disqualify them from owning guns?  

 The real danger is in the heart and mind of the person carrying a gun.  Yes, guns have been linked to higher homicide and suicide rates by guns, but the truth of the matter is that if a person really wants to kill someone, or themselves, then they will find a way. They won't let the lack of a gun deter them, as evidence by all the crimes that occur without guns.  Outlawing guns does not reduce crime!!! (Here, Glenn Beck, (9) a proud member of the NRA and one of my favorite news anchors gives his viewpoint about the gun debate. This is back when he was working for CNN.) Just because you give someone a gun, doesn't mean they will use it in an irresponsible manner, as the liberals suggest.  Yes, guns make killing easier, but the same people who want to kill someone will still want to kill someone, and the same people that want to kill themselves will still want to kill themselves, regardless of whether they have a gun or not. Besides, as I explained earlier, it isn't the people who have legal ownership of guns that are causing the problems, its the people that have them illegally. The only regulation the government can enforce on guns is taking them from the people who have not properly registered them.  If these people keep the guns, the crime rate would not decrease but instead only increase because all the criminals wouldn't fear the possibility that they could be shot at upon committing their crime. With gun control laws, a sign posted in every person's lawn stating "Gun Free Zone", might as well be intact, just inviting them in to burglarize their house. 

(4) Strict gun control laws only hurt the defenseless as evidence by the following graph. Note that Washington D.C. and Chicago, Illinois have the highest homicide rate and the most restrictive gun control laws.

(6) 

The only ploy I see for taking away guns is governmental control, because there really is no other objective since gun-control only raises crime rates. 

 

 (7)

     I'm still confused as to what exactly the liberals find so attractive about a government that deprives them of their rights, and many aspects of their lives. The government now wants a passive population whose will it can bend. The liberal government doesn't trust its own people, and therefore feels it necessary to interject itself into a person's right to defend themselves and, now, their healthcare!? What next? The next rights up will be from the First Amendment! Obama has already been trying to quiet Fox News and the so called "astroturf" because it speaks the truth about his socialist policies.  If the American people can't even defend themselves against buglers, then how are they supposed to defend themselves against a socialist government?

 

(8)

 

What you can do

     I think for the most part, that the trends in violence and gun control make my argument for me, that guns should not be a denied to the people. Does the Second Amendment mean nothing these days? The best and only non-violent way to go about this is to remain firm and resolute against the government and let your representatives know that America has not lost its conservative roots, which it hasn't. In fact, most people in this country consider themselves conservatives.  The only way to prevent the government takeover, is to protest peacefully, until they do finally listen and hear us, or until they finally know that the majority of Americans don't like the direction America is going in. Once America is brought back to its conservative roots and 'refounded', as Glenn Beck would say, these progressive policies will simmer down. I'm not blaming it all on Obama either, Bush and McCain were both progressives in the eyes of Republicans. (By progressive I mean they are no James Madison!)  But sometimes, it has to get worse before it gets better as in this case. Only time will decide the future of the gun debate.

 

previous section 'Types of Federalism'                                                                                                   next section 'In the Media Today'

 

Works Cited:

(1) Rose, Veronica "Parker V. District of Columbia" Sept. 28, 2007 <http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0557.htm>

(2) Fox News "Several States Ease Restrictions on Gun Laws"<http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/12/states-ease-restrictions-gun-laws/> (2010)

(3) http://thesituationist.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/gun-control-pro.gif

(4) <http://www.funnyandjokes.com/index.php?s=gun+control> (2005-2009)

(5)  eNotes "Firearm Laws" <http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/firearm-laws> (2010)

(6) http://happycarpenter.blogs.com/the_happy_carpenter/images/2007/04/10/gun_control_map_death_of_gun_contro.gif

(7) http://www.conservativecotton.com/images/t-shirts/gun_control_isnt_about_guns_its_about_control_design.gif

(8) http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/small/0905/gun-control-gun-control-2nd-ammendment-barak-obama-socialist-demotivational-poster-1241628719.jpg

(9) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH7tRP_EZ9w&feature=related

(10) "Statistics, Gun Control Issues, and Safety"<http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html>

(11) Rosenthal, John "US Gun Violence by the Numbers" Oct. 31, 2008 <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-rosenthal/us-gun-violence-by-thenu_b_139879.html> (2010)

(12)  Centers for Disease Control Fatal and Non-Fatal Injury Database "National Firearm Injury and Death Statistics" 2004

 <http://washingtonceasefire.org/resource-center/national-firearm-injury-and-death-statistics>

Comments (2)

mberry said

at 2:28 pm on Dec 14, 2009

Please add an intro paragraph here to tell the reader what the point is of discussing this issue (especially in the partisan way in which the information is presented). You have made an interesting (and I think good) choice to take on a couple of the "Constitutional controversies" but the reader needs to be let in on your intent for doing so...

mberry said

at 2:44 pm on Dec 14, 2009

I tried to help you with the intro section. Jordan I took out the sentence about the "government not listening." At points in this, you seem to forget your audience. While you want to show the conservative side of this issue, this is still an AP text book aimed at juniors and seniors in high school. Telling them their govt isn't listening is a bit too extreme. You also have a couple of assertions that are not well substantiated. Most Americans now define themselves as "independent" not "conservative" according to Gallup and Wall Street Journal polls. And your idea that George W Bush was a "progressive" either needs to go or it needs explained (most/many readers will not understand how you can make that assertion).

You don't have permission to comment on this page.