Assignment Task:
This topic is one that is often seen as black and white instead of the shades of grey that it is. There is understandably a lot of emotion and trauma that comes with this argument as well. Does the general population have the right to bare arms? When I hear this question and read what the second amendment states I picture a colonial farmer using his personal hunting rifle that he uses for hunting or trapping as part of the militia. So, I always find myself wondering if the second amendment would have been written to limit scenarios such as those. Truly, I can't see the founders taking that capability away from themselves and the rest of the public. Therefore, I can see people of the founder's era having firearms for food, protection, and to be part of the "National Guard." On the other hand, I am sure that the founders never could have imagined the advancement in technology that we have today.
In all honesty, I feel this is where Hamilton's worry of something not being specifically stated in the Bill of Rights comes into play. I wonder if gun ownership was something so natural for the time that the founders didn't feel the need for it to be included in the Constitution. However, they made the decision to included not disarming a militia due to the possibility of having to revolt in case their government experiment failed again.
I look at second amendment from this perspective. Therefore, I think the public should be able to bear arms, however not without consequence. Also, in an effort to keep up with modern technology, I do not think the public should have access to military grade weapons or attachments/modifications that would allow those types of capabilities. Furthermore, I find it prudent for there to be legislation that hold gun owners accountable and responsible for negligence and gun related violence due to negligence, as well.
So, I believe that the public should have access to guns that can help them forage for food, allow the capability to work, protect their family and property. For example, rifles are often used in hunting deer, boar, and even alligators. The pelts/hides from these animals are often sold and allow for people to make a living, as well. Therefore, they can be an essential tool for survival, and banning them would be detrimental to those populations. It is similar for those who live in the mountains, rural, or forested areas. There are predators that you would not want to be close to if they decided to attack, such as a bear or mountain lion. So, I cannot agree with taking away a form of protection. Lastly, we have seen the evils of mankind, and some of those evils have been perpetrated by the use guns. However, when it is in the correct hands it can become a tool to help protect a family from harm. With all of this I do acknowledge that there needs to be a way to maintain accountability over gun ownership as well.
I believe that there needs to be a federal registry that holds the information of gun owners. This registry would also set the preliminary requirements need to be met to obtain and renew a license to carry. Doing this would eliminate some of the confusion of what is allowed by each state, and close potential loopholes registering for a gun in one state when banned in another. A few examples of this can be the national requirements for background checks on all firearm sales (closing the Gun Show Loophole and restricting private selling), mandatory training and national regulations concerning gun safety. Then the states could add to or request an exemption pertaining to regional needs. In addition, there needs to be laws in place that enforce consequences when guns are not properly secured and then are used in a crime or the negligence results in harm or death. For example, a child showing a gun off to another child and accidently killing them.
In the case of threatening behavior, I believe the person's ability to have guns should be revoked and the person should have to undergo a mental evaluation before the they can begin the process to regain that ability. This is to protect themselves as well as others.
There should also be restrictions on the types of guns allowed to be carried. I will admit I don't know the various types and models available out there, but I do not believe the general public needs access to military grade firearms. Nor should there be any accessories or modifications that would allow a greater infliction of damage or allow firearms to have the same capabilities as military firearms. There is just too much damage that can be done if they are in the wrong hands.
I know this will not stop the bad guys from getting guns. However, we have to start holding people to a higher level of accountability when guns are involved. Too much is going on for just thoughts and prayers. While I know there are plenty of responsible gun owners that take owning a firearm very seriously, there are those that, unfortunately, don't and we will have to make decisions that benefit the collective good.
Can you please reply back to this discussion broad response please?