Guns are not what kill people! People kill people! Taking guns away from society will make society more distrustful of every one around them. When the trust in community is removed, people have a far greater chance of procuring guns illegally just because they might think their neighbor has a gun too and why not; they need to protect their way of life as well. Instead we need to keep it legal for everyone to own a gun as long as they are within the parameters of those who can legally own or purchase a gun. Taking guns away does not stop school shootings or random massacres but will actually increase shootings because people will have a greater mistrust of the government and of their community. People are much more likely to scare off their attacker if they are armed either in their own home or out in public. 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime." Criminals fear little ole me from shooting them when they are trying to force their way into my home. Now why would I need to protect myself from that? Owning a gun is considered a right and a freedom for every United States citizen who chooses to exert that right and freedom. there may be people who are not allowed to won a gun, but they made that decision when they chose to do something against the law that would prevent them from owning a handgun. But, I have not broken any laws and if I so choose to own a handgun I should be able to own one. I should never have to worry about someone coming into my home and taking what is mine. Either my possessions or to harm my family in any way. I have the right and the duty to protect what is mine. Why should I be OK with the criminal who wants to do me harm to have a gun to coerce me to do his bidding, but it is not OK for me to put a gun to his face and tell him to get the heck off my property!
Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Self-defense is a right to every citizen. If a snake enters your home and is threatening your children what do you do? Will you call the police and complain about it and wait for them to rescue you. The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour. The police cannot help every person every time. There is just not enough officers available to us on a daily basis. Citizens far out number police officers on duty. The ratio is unbalanced, what are you going to do? Wait for the police to rescue you from the snake threatening your family or are you going to grab the nearest weapon possible to kill or dismember the attacker so you can get your children to safety. The same scenario works the same way if that "snake" is a burglar or rapist intent on harming you and your family. Will you wait heedlessly by for the police to get there in time to help you or will you step and protect what is yours to protect? I hope you are going to protect what is yours. That is a basic instinct in all humans. Survival of self and survival of kin. It is the most basic instinct we have as humans. That instinct takes over and can make us do anything we need to do to protect ourselves and our family. Why not use that gun you LEGALLY bought at the gun shop to protect you from the criminal.
The Brady bill was implemented in 1994 to decrease gun violence in the United States. Many politicians and research analysts have found that making the gun laws more strict does not help gun violence in any way, such as in Washington D.C. and Arlington, VA. In these two cities it has been stated that, The strict gun laws in Washington D.C. make criminals buy guns in Arlington, VA. But the crime rate is lower in Arlington, VA than in Washington D.C. Criminals who are ignoring the laws in one state will just pursue other options in other states with a more lax law towards gun control and gun ownership. There will always be guns, we as citizens and lawmakers don't need to change the gun laws. We need to change how people can get access to these guns.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Our right to own firearms.
When debating whether American citizens should be able to own personal firearms either in a personal, classroom, or legal setting, the second amendment is certain to be brought up. “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” is what the second amendment of the United States Constitution states.
Some pro-gun control activists think this means that the right to own a firearm is limited to militia members only due to the first clause "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State." Which now days our militia is the national guard, so if this was the case, this amendment would be invalidated now. On the other hand, anti-gun control activists believe the most important part of this clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”. They believe this means US citizens have a right to own firearms whether in a military position or not. I believe is a combination of both these thoughts and by what early American politicians, legal scholars, and military men all said, it seems they thought the same thing.
St George Tucker, who was a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by President Madison), wrote about the second amendment in "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1803). He believed that the intent was not to provide only militia with arms, but every law abiding citizen with the right. Regarding the 2nd amendment he states "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature . . . [When] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." (Volume 1-appendix) This is important because the direct relation to self-defense is made here, which is a major concern that is brought up in the current modern debate.
Another reputable source who studied and wrote about the second amendment is US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. He wrote "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"(1833) which is the first comprehensive discourse of the US Constitution in whole. In this work he explained of the 2nd amendment, "The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. . . The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." In addition, Tennessee Supreme Court later explained in Andrews v. State (1871) that this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
By looking at these three examples, I believe we can conclude that the founding fathers, as well as the legal and political leaders of that time, intended for the people to have the right to own firearms both for the duty of militia work as well as private use.
Some pro-gun control activists think this means that the right to own a firearm is limited to militia members only due to the first clause "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State." Which now days our militia is the national guard, so if this was the case, this amendment would be invalidated now. On the other hand, anti-gun control activists believe the most important part of this clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”. They believe this means US citizens have a right to own firearms whether in a military position or not. I believe is a combination of both these thoughts and by what early American politicians, legal scholars, and military men all said, it seems they thought the same thing.
St George Tucker, who was a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by President Madison), wrote about the second amendment in "Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England" (1803). He believed that the intent was not to provide only militia with arms, but every law abiding citizen with the right. Regarding the 2nd amendment he states "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty, The right of self-defense is the first law of nature . . . [When] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." (Volume 1-appendix) This is important because the direct relation to self-defense is made here, which is a major concern that is brought up in the current modern debate.
Another reputable source who studied and wrote about the second amendment is US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story. He wrote "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"(1833) which is the first comprehensive discourse of the US Constitution in whole. In this work he explained of the 2nd amendment, "The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. . . The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic." In addition, Tennessee Supreme Court later explained in Andrews v. State (1871) that this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
By looking at these three examples, I believe we can conclude that the founding fathers, as well as the legal and political leaders of that time, intended for the people to have the right to own firearms both for the duty of militia work as well as private use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)