Can there be common ground on Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution?
After years of losses in the courts, gun control opponents have finally won two major victories in the Supreme Court. The decisions the Supreme Court and the impacts of these decisions are still being argued between gun control advocates (generally liberal) and opponents (generally conservative). Can there be common ground on Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution?
With the recent Supreme Court decision on gun control in the District of Columbia and Chicago, the courts have reversed several lower court decisions that the government may impose strict gun controls. However, this decision did not eliminate all gun control laws. Both the District and Chicago are now grappling with the consequences. What laws will satisfy both the gun owners who threaten additional law suits and a majority of their citizens who want strict gun control to curb violence? What role will the United States Congress take in this process? Can liberals and conservatives find common ground?
|
Conservative Response
|
|
Conservatives believe the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States guarantees every American the right to own and possess firearms. The Supreme Court has finally agreed and gun owners continue to chip away at gun control laws, either through the courts or through the legislature, throughout the United States from Arizona to Virginia.
For conservatives, the Second Amendment is sacrosanct. The right to bear arms is an individual right that is central to our American identity. From the very beginning of our nation, guns have played an important role to ensure the freedoms we hold dear in America. This right should NEVER be restricted for law-abiding citizens.
|
Although Conservatives don't fundamentally agree with background checks, we do agree that background checks are necessary to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Background checks, however, should not restrict access to guns for law-abiding citizens. Conservatives believe that strong penalties are required for criminal acts of violence with guns and there should be significant restrictions on convicted criminals obtaining weapons.
— Editor
|
Liberal Response
Gun Rights Advocates continue to win battles in the courts and the legislatures to loosen gun control laws throughout the county. They celebrate court wins in the District of Columbia and Chicago, relaxed laws in the states and even changes at the federal level allowing gun owners to carry weapons into our treasured National Parks. Still they protest and complain that their "right" to carry guns is under assault from the government. They believe that with the election of Barak Obama as President of the United States, the federal government will ban all guns. The propaganda is so strong that the sale of guns in America soared after Barak Obama's election.
The conflict over the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution has been, over time, the most contentious and most personal battle. It's either an individual right that's as precious as a person's right to attend church or it's a state right to maintain a "well-regulated militia". It seems impossible to create a common ground; however, liberals aren't demanding that everyone hand over their firearms. Liberals are asking for common sense regulations that restrict sales of assault weapons, that prohibit sales to suspected terrorists, criminals and those with mental illnesses through stringent background checks, and that eliminate loopholes for gun show sales. Liberals believe that local governments, such as D.C., have a right to enact laws limiting gun possession to reduce the level of gun violence. Liberals don't see any reason to allow anyone, besides law enforcement or park rangers, to carry a weapon in our federal or state government buildings, in our National Parks, or in our schools.
Recent protests involved the Starbucks in Old Town Alexandria, Virginia. On a street lined with restaurants and art galleries, a gun rights advocate believed it absolutely necessary that he carry his loaded gun to order a cup of coffee. The white, middle class, middle aged man got his coffee. The anti-gun protests that followed did little to change Starbucks' policies. Would it have made a difference if the gun owner was a black or Hispanic young man dressed like a gang member? Would a Starbucks employee or a customer have called the police? How do you think the police would have reacted to this situation?
Although liberals believe that the United States Constitution does not ensure an individual right to own or carry a gun, they do NOT believe that every "law abiding" citizen must hand over their guns. However, they do believe that there needs to be laws that impose common sense restrictions on the sale and possession of guns.
— Editor
|
Alternative Response
The right to keep and bear arms, as defined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, is neither an individual right to defend oneself nor a state's right to maintain an armed militia. It is an individual obligation and, in fact, an individual requirement to meet a citizen's responsibility to provide for the common defense. At a time of crisis at the local, state or national level, it is the responsibility of every able-bodied citizen to protect and defend the homeland.
Though it may be difficult for some to hear and others to agree with, this country was built by and defended with the gun. During the time of our founding fathers, it was well known and well documented that accessibility to arms was essential, not only to the survival in a fledgling nation but to ensure the continued protection of our new way of life.
It is no coincidence that the right to bear arms is the Second Amendment. The First Amendment of the Constitution defines our civil liberties, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the government. The founding fathers knew that the Second Amendment was absolutely required to ensure the liberties defined in the First Amendment.
Every able-bodied, law-abiding American should be required to defend the United States and should be required to purchase a gun and learn how to use it.
— Editor
|
