Vector Photo by Wingnut Designs
We have toleration for gun deaths in this country because
there is a belief that shootings are synonymous with ownership and that we
share a protected collective right to own guns. Beliefs informed by the
misquoted and misunderstood language of the second amendment that spurs
misguided dialogue about gun ownership.
I have included the language of the second amendment for reference and
contemplation.
The second amendment reads:
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.
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.
When I say I agree people should be allowed to bear arms I
did not say all people, and I did not say what type of guns I think
those people should be allowed to bear. Neither did the second amendment. Let’s
start off by creating a list of qualifiers to owning a gun. Of sound mind and a
clear criminal record top the list. But this statement needs further
clarification. When I say sound mind I mean a person has undergone clinical
testing by a licensed psychologist with results indicating sound mental health.
Additionally a person must pass a urinalysis prior to the purchase of a gun.
When people pass clinical testing, urinalysis and rigorous background checks
verified throughout the states we could get a comprehensive look at potential
deviance and risks toward violent tendencies.
Addressing the types of firearms people are permitted to own
is the most difficult topic to tackle in the gun control movement. The founding
fathers certainly would not have been able to provide language to prohibit
types of guns that are being sold today. Long gone are the days of muzzle
loading rifles. Perhaps they did foreshadow the need to address regulations on
gun ownership with the opening words of the second amendment.
Our high rate of gun related injuries and deaths would only
reduce if we agreed that gun ownership to people of sound mind is not being debated, only the types of
guns we are allowed to carry. Nor are our individual liberties being denied to
defend life, freedom, family and country. The restriction on gun
types and ownership will improve public safety and still uphold the intent of
the amendment. It is now time to address the introductory words of the second
amendment we are failing at, the well-regulated part.
News article inspiring this week’s blog:
http://www.ebony.com/black-listed/news-views/arrest-made-in-pittsburgh-high-school-shooting-981#.Uom7LJV8PIU
I could not agree more with this entire post. I would add that there should be thorough testing that shows the person purchasing the gun knows exactly how to use it. I mean thorough. You have to go through quite a bit, in some states, in order to drive a car... but it seems like you don't even need to show a level of proficiency in shooting before getting a gun. Require classes, testing in a gun range, proof that you can aim the darn thing, and know how to store it safely.
ReplyDeleteI think my one controversial comment is that the idea behind the amendment was to ensure that the people could protect themselves from harm from, basically, themselves (i.e. an oppressive government)- that in the most dire of scenarios a group of militia could form to stand up for their rights. I personally do not think people should be allowed to purchase the weapons of war that can be found out there today... but to play devils advocate, I do have to ask- what chance would a militia with hand guns have against an army with automatic weapons?