Can I have some asthma medication? I may have to see your prescription please…..Can I have a Gun? Right away, Sir!

As hotly debated as of a topic it has always been and will be until something is done about it, gun control issue has been all over the news since the last horrific mass shooting in Las Vegas. Though the Second Amendment evinces 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.” But there is definitely a need to control the extent and quantity of the arms one can bear. You may feel safe with just one gun in your holster or may feel still insecure even after possessing a whole barrage of machine guns. A perfect balance between constitutional rights and effective society management is to call for gun control. Would you prefer to live in a place where it is harder to get a cronut than a gun or in a place where guns are just as hard as to get a bite of cronut?

Time it takes to buy a cronut vs a gun

In a country, where to buy a cronut, it takes almost 2 and 1/2 hour, but whereas for a gun, it just takes less than 22 minutes to buy a .22 rifle, I believe every person needs to be vetted before they can buy a gun. Approximately, 3 million American civilians carry guns today, that is 1 percent of the entire population. Though the percentage may seem less at the start, when you look at the bigger picture, America has had the most gun murders per 100,000 residents in the year 2015 than the following 7 countries combined. With almost one mass shooting averaging per day, 291 mass shootings have had happened in the last twelve months out of which 154 alone happened in this calendar year, 6,880 gun-related deaths have taken place due to mass shooting.

Gun Murders per 100,000 residents

Repealing the Second Amendment and therefore taking guns away from everybody is going to be tough as 30% of the Total Percentage of Individuals owns a Firearm, but we can at least try to amend it by getting the Congress to pass a law to have just as diligent checks as getting a passport for the first time requirements. During the time when the Second Amendment had just been passed in 1791, the latest technology in the gun industry were muskets, which had a reload time of 15-20 seconds. Today with the advancement in technology has come so far, to empty a whole clip of a semi-automatic rifle it takes 15-20 seconds. At that time it seemed like a sensible idea for everybody to have a gun for their safety and not worry about people going on a rampage of mass shooting, but today a refined gun control is imperative for the safety of the people and for the country as a whole.

Looking at the recent unfortunate mass shooting at Las Vegas country music festival, 59 people were killed and about 525 were injured. According to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s sheriff, 23 guns were found in Stephen Paddock’s room. If anybody can so easily buy more than 20 guns in America itself, than what is the use of having a travel ban to restrict terrorist attacks!

Therefore, if we make the Second Amendment refined now, that way we will have no Paddock who can kill 58 innocents. Though we may still have some shooting here and there, this is perfect time to carefully review the lackadaisical process of buying arms. Its time we make the amendment refined and make the process of getting a semi-automatic rifle just a tough as buying a Kinder Eggs and unpasteurized milk to make brie. Let us stop lighting the candles for the victims, and light the will of fire in people to amend the Second Amendment for betterment of our posterity.

Image-1 source: Cronut vs gun (picture edited according to the preference).

Image-2 source: Gun Murders per 100,000 residents.

Can We Repeal the Second Amendment?

For Americans, our right to bear arms, granted to us by the Second Amendment, is a vital part of our fundamental freedoms; however, could this cornerstone of our democratic republic be repealed and what would be the consequences? Of course, such a bold suggestion arises only after the deadliest mass shooting in American history which occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada. Fifty-eight people were killed and more than five hundred were injured. This topic has many argumentative standpoints and for this discussion, we are going to review the matter through a Constitutional lens.

Underneath the Constitution and the Bill of Rights , we as American citizens are guaranteed the right to “…keep and bear [a]rms…” (Amendment II). The Second Amendment was, and remains to this day, an essential part of the Bill of Rights which was the driving force for the ratification of the Constitution. For most Americans, to repeal this amendment would greatly infringe on personal rights; however, that does not mean repeal would be impossible. Under Article V, which covers amendments, there are no explicit clauses that mention repeal. The clauses only mention the creation of amendments and the steps necessary to ratify them. This causes somewhat of a dilemma, as there is no process to repeal the Second Amendment. Law, however, when scrutinized, can contain loopholes and we look to the example of the 18^th and 21^st amendments for guidance. The 18^th amendment prohibited the manufacturing and sale of alcohol in the early 1900s; later on, the 21^st amendment was ratified in order to repeal the 18^th amendment. Legislators used the language of the Constitution to repeal the amendment when there was no procedure for repeal in the first place. They simply utilized the creation clauses for amendments to produce an amendment that made the 18^th null and void. From what I have gathered, if Congress were to make a move to fully/partially repeal the Second Amendment, this is the course of action that they would most likely take. Additionally, if Congress were to follow through with this action, there is also another debate to be had over the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments to our Constitution guarantee and protect our most basic rights and never in our country’s history have any of the amendments in the Bill of Rights been repealed. Issues like these create questions that both politicians and citizens are likely to be debating about heatedly. Questions such as: Does Congress have power to touch any amendment in the Bill of Rights, a document that is the very foundation of this country? If so, what would a repeal of the second amendment symbolize for both the U.S. and its citizens? What could it also signify for the rest of the amendments in the Bill of Rights? How stable are their foundations to withhold this oncoming storm of discussions?

Furthermore, Congress would also run into road blocks such as the procedures necessary to create amendments. First, “two thirds of both Houses” must be willing and deem it necessary to propose amendments to the Constitution (Article V). Afterwards, an even more challenging process follows because then, “three fourths of the…States” must elect to ratify the proposed amendment within each of their legislative bodies (Article V).

While repeal of the Second Amendment, whether it be partial or full repeal, sounds feasible on paper, the reality is that it most likely would not pass through into law because of the human factor. We are a democratic republic and we the people have a voice which demonstrates our will. Since the Second Amendment is such a fundamental right for the American people, it is highly unlikely that the voice of the people would stand by as that right is taken away.

Image Source

Gun Control

Gun control is always a big topic over the world, guns are illegal in some of the countries, and some of countries guarantees their people have the right to possess guns. However, which one of the two would bring a safer environment to their people. From my perspective, I feel safer in a country where people do not have guns. To begin with, people would not bring guns when they goes to a party or just have a walk in the park, they do not bring guns with them every seconds which makes the gun meaningless. In the other hand, if people walking around with guns, it creates a tensive neighborhood, which for me seems nobody is trustworthy.

Christopher Ingraham/Washington Post

Moreover, a person with gun could do much more damage than a strong men without weapons. If a violent gunman starts to shooting at others, people would not able to stop him if they do not have gun with them, even after police arrives, it would be a concern that suppressing the gunman would cause more damage. While it is easier to stop an unarmed person with people around working together. From my own experience, safety of a university becomes a very important factor while choosing college since so many shooting cases happened in campus, such as the case happened in Georgia Tech. Even during traveling, friend would tell me not to go outside alone in the night in some of the blocks. An article written by Jonathan Masters in The Atlantic, Gun Control Around the World: A Primer, “The United States also has the highest homicide-by-firearm rate among the world’s most developed nations”. The Data in the article are shown below.

Firearms per 100 People (2007)   Council on Foreign Relations (Data: Small Arms Survey)

Firearm Homicides per 100,000 People (2013)     Jonathan Masters and Julia Ro (Data: gunpolicy.org, University of Sydney)

On October 1st, the biggest mass shooting in the United States’ history takes place in Las Vegas which causes at least 59 people dead, and 527 injured. According to The New York Times, multiple weapons were found in gunman’s hotel room. Gun control has been a controversial topic, since it was written in the constitution that citizens have the right to bear arms, to ensure the government do not have to much power over people. However, by Los Angeles Times, it collects deadliest U.S mass shootings from 1984 to 2017. The data shown that mass shooting happens every year since 1984, and 6 cases happened in the year of 2012 causes over fifty deaths. Furthermore, according to  German Lopez, “There have been more than 1,500 mass shootings since Sandy Hook”, and “On average, there is more than one mass shooting for each day in America”. Some would argue that car accidents happens everyday, more frequently than mass shooting. However, I believe that car accident should be avoid by government leading people, while people should be protect from mass shooting. They weigh differently. If the gunman comes from another country or belongs to some organization, it becomes a signal of war, the consequence from shooting would be much terrible, and it brings fear and unsafe atmosphere to people in the states.

Image Source： https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/the-san-bernardino-mass-shooting-is-the-second-today-and-the-355th-this-year/?utm_term=.51eb0b991f8

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/worldwide-gun-control-policy/423711/

Is It Necessary to Bear Arms?

 

     The second amendment indicates that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In other words, this amendment empowers people the right to bear arms. This amendment was ratified in 1791, which people have been granted this right for a long time. However, a recent tragedy brings people to think: do we need to repeal the second amendment?

    Bret Stephens in The New York Times indicates “more guns means more murder,” and which, “more guns means less safety.” He provided a few data in his article to support his opinion as to repeal the second amendment, and I totally agree with him. There exist people who say that they bear arms to ensure their own safety; nevertheless, I do not see it as a valid argument. Imagine people live in a country where no one is allowed to carry arms with the exception of military and police force. Murder cases may still happen in that society, yet there will not be one like the massacre in Las Vegas. Guns are the most powerful and destructive weapon one can carry around; thus, if nobody is permitted to bear arms, there is no necessity for one to concern his or her safety related to gun shooting.Knowing everyone else has the same right to bear arms certainly raises the anxiety: one may feel panic and worry when going to public events, and one in such country that ban gun usage will not.

     Take China as an example. One question on Quora was posed, “do people feel safe in China?” Generally speaking, no country is always safe; however, the majority of the response under that question was a “yes.” Though there are numerous factors, many of those respondents mention how the ban of gun usage promotes their sense of security. Chuli Deng stated several instances, and “the first is everybody in China can not hold a gun privately, and we never feel we need it to protect ourselves.” As a Chinese citizen myself, I partially agree with this answer; we still need to have the self-protection awareness. But indeed, people in China often worry less about their own security issues when they go out. Their relieved feeling mainly comes from that no one concerns that he or she may got random shot based on the strict gun control system.

    Gun shooting accidents have become a serious problem. In the website Aftermath® it stated, “according to the Centers for Disease Control, there were 130,557 deaths in 2013 from unintentional injuries, the 4th ranking cause of death in 2013 overall.” The New York Times author Stephens calls it as “self-destruction,“ which the intentional and unintentional occurrences of shooting accidents have become a leading factor of deaths. Government can grant people the right to bear arm, yet not everyone can be trusted with arms. A lax policy on such destructive weapon will lead to more nightmares, maybe even worse than the Las Vegas case. There is no need for citizens to own any arm, for no one needs to concern about shooting if no other people except military and police has the right to keep weapons. Therefore, repealing the second amendment cannot do more harm but only benefits the citizens physically and mentally to have a sense of security.

 

 

Image source:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiOh8u46__WAhWBZiYKHf4HCO4QjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wnyc.org%2Fstory%2Fshould-we-repeal-second-amendment%2F&psig=AOvVaw0URh-zeZ1eJ1cbAuNBaAF5&ust=1508609994885177

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiC_abH6P_WAhUC6iYKHU7MBHIQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fzerogov.com%2F%3Fp%3D2958&psig=AOvVaw0URh-zeZ1eJ1cbAuNBaAF5&ust=1508609994885177

Something needs to be done

Gun control along with repealing and amending the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution has been a topic of discussion among many people since the recent Las Vegas shooting. Americans are worried about mass shooting happening more often as they sadly do to often in our country. People are blaming the National Rifle Association for this, and others say that it is other things. I do not think it is the NRA’s fault, but a missed red flag by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Repealing the Second Amendment would not solve the problem, but adding more gun regulations and amending the Second Amendment could eliminate more mass shooting and take guns off the streets.

It is the right of an American citizen to “bear arms” (Amendment 2) so taking away this right is stripping away the freedom that the Constitution promises us. The United States needs to find a solution to the amount of gun related shootings, but it is not going to be an easy fix. More gun control needs to be at the top of the list which starts with harsher restrictions on being able to get a hand gun license, and the amount of ammo and guns some one is allowed to buy at one time. Harsher restrictions could come with backlash since people might argue that these restrictions are limiting their freedom, but it is should not be a walk in the park to get a license for any gun especially semiautomatic and automatic rifles.

People on the other side might say the repealing the second amendment would solve the gun problem in America. Outlawing guns logically seems like the best idea, but many people in America own guns who would strongly disagree about this. Repealing the Second Amendment is taking away Americans freedom, but by repealing guns would stop the legal selling of guns. This would be great for those who are anti-guns, but people who are desperate enough to buy a gun could still buy them off the black market.

While repealing the second amendment seems the most logical, it would never work in the society we will live since most people own for protection or hunting even though they should feel safe in their country. I think that we should get rid of the the “well regulated Militia” (Amendment 2) since we have a national army that is one of the powerful in the world. It is not needed in modern society anymore. Since it is a right for the people to own a gun, they just need to need more regulated, which the government could put more security in place to look for certain red flags. There needs to be a certain harsher criterion for owning and why you want to own a gun. I am for people owning guns, but at some point, we need to realize that they are dangerous and not everyone should have one.

Amending the second amendment and regulating guns through gun legislation like in the past could help solve the gun crisis in that has been hurting our country for the last several decades. When John F. Kennedy was killed by Oswald, gun control was a topic of discussion after this event since Oswald bought the gun from mail order. Senator Thomas Dodd of Connecticut pushed legislation to regulate gun sale to people under 18 years old. He didn’t succeed at first, but finally, he got the Gun Control Act of 1968 passed which regulates firearms dealers and imposed a federal minimum age requirement of 18 for handguns and long guns. Carl T. Bogus says, “Publicly, the National Rifle Association supported the bill.” (Chicago-Kent Law Review) The NRA also spent “144,000” to support the bill. The biggest promoter of guns and the second amendment is even for harsher restrictions on owning guns. Limiting and regulating guns could decrease the mass shootings and gun related deaths in our country.

Image source:Vegas Shooting Picture 

Image 2 source: Second Amendment Picture

President Obama on Gun Control in State of the Union

Recent massacres such as the Sandy Hook shooting in Newton and the “Dark Knight” shooting in Colorado have raised awareness on gun control in the United States. Liberals feel as if new laws should passed as to which kinds of guns are legal to sell. On the other hand, conservatives see to it that restricting which guns they own affects their Second Amendment right to bear arms. Despite the debate between parties,the country does recognize that something must be done to prevent such shootings in the future. Christina Wilikie’s article in the Huffington Post reports on President Obama’s State of the Union speech in which he addressed the issue of gun control in America.

To begin his assertion, President Obama stated that this is not the first time the United States has labeled gun control as a concern. In spite of this, he declared that the Newtown shooting in which 20 innocent children and 6 adults werekilled demands that subject must finally be dealt with accordingly:

“Overwhelming majorities of Americans -– Americans who believe in the 2nd Amendment — have come together around common-sense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because they are tired of being outgunned.”

One of the ways Obama is trying to manipulate gun control is by placing a ban on all military-style weapons, such as automatic weapons that carry extremely large magazines. However, the National Rifle Association feels as if their Second Amendment rights would be violated if such a law were passed. The Amendment clearly states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” The text obviously supports that weapons can be possessed, but the argument arises from what the text does not say; there is no indication that all arms are legal, nor any sign that certain weapons are prohibited. The liberal side to this argument is that simple changes are eligible to be added that can simply imply restrictions to which arms can be owned. The flip side of the argument (the conservative side) cherish their right to own any weapon they please. As long as they pass the standard background checks, or even more intense improvements to the background checks, there is no reason they should be stripped of their assault rifles.

President Obama, being a liberal democrat, wishes to restrict the weapons that can be owned. The president’s point of view is clearly controversial, but through one speech, Obama “disarmed the argument… that no law can eliminate all gun violence,” Wilikie wrote. Obama was able to dismantle the opposing opinion and gain significant amounts of supporters by exploiting Neustadt’s theory of a president’s power to persuade. As Neustadt declared in his book “Presidential Power”, a president is able to use his “status and authority to yield bargaining advantages.” Obama, knowing he would have the nation’s full attention, focused the majority of his State of the Union speech on gun control. After addressing the issue at large and his solution, Obama made an emotional appeal about one of the many victims of gun violence:

“One of those we lost was a young girl named Hadiya Pendleton. She was 15 years old. She loved Fig Newtons and lip gloss. She was a majorette. She was so good to her friends, they all thought they were her best friend. Just three weeks ago, she was here, in Washington, with her classmates, performing for her country at my inauguration. And a week later, she was shot and killed in a Chicago park after school, just a mile away from my house.”

President Obama receives a standing ovation at the conclusion of his State of the Union Speech

Obama’s telling of Pendleton’s story was an excellent method of executing Neustadt’s theory. He enflamed emotions throughout the audience, which left people yearning for change. The touching anecdote resulted in a standing ovation and overwhelming support for Obama’s gun control bills. Through his words, he was able to convince his people that protecting the children is more important than owning a fancy gun.

While Obama’s State of the Union speech undoubtedly put pressure on Congress to vote on new gun control bills, the debate still fumes as a conclusion has yet to be reached. Meanwhile, the nation impatiently awaits a contentious resolution to the gun control issues that are plaguing many cities in the United States.

The Right to Fair Arms

The Vice President spoke last night at a violence conference in Danbury, Connecticut. His audience, members of the state’s congressional delegation. Mr. Biden was there to push the President’s gun control policy. Mr. Vice President touched bases with the attendees by appealing to their pathos, “‘We have to speak for those 20 beautiful children who died 69 days ago, 12 miles from here,’ Biden said. ‘We have to speak for the voice of those six adults who died trying to save the children in their care that day who can’t speak for themselves. You have to speak for the 1,900 people who have died at the other end of a gun just since Sandy Hook in this country.’”(The Stamford Times)

Mr. Biden was at the conference to reiterate the importance of change concerning guns in this country. He tried to advocate the president’s plan of,

• “Closing background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands;

• Banning military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence;
• Making schools safer; and
• Increasing access to mental health services.”(Douglas Dispatch)

Though the plan of the President appeals to many there are some that have publicly said that they disapprove of the president’s choice to push gun control laws. “The Utah Sheriff Association wrote to the President a day after he released his plan.The letter stated ‘we respect the office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties; we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights in particular Amendment II has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.’”(Douglas Dispatch)

The President’s plan is one that in my opinion exemplifies the change that needs to happen around the gun culture in this country. For the people that lost their loved ones in the shootings or the people affected by gun violence we as a nation need to change. Mr. Biden is in the right to advocate the President’s plan for gun control. These simple but necessary things will make this country safer. From background checks to banning military-style assault rifles, is where we need to get as a nation to keep each other safe. Regarding our constitutional rights, clearly stated in the Sheriff’s Association of Utah, are founding fathers gave us the right to bare arms but they met against invading forces. The fact is that no one needs a fully automatic weapons lying around their house. And to the avid hunters out there it is a little unsportsmanlike to try and hunt with a high powered automatic rifle, I believe that it takes away from the art and skill needed to hunt. Mr. Vice President is in the right to try and help our countries gun problem the fact is there are “1,900 people who have died at the other end of a gun just since Sandy Hook in this country.’”(The Stamford Times) The Utah Sheriff Association is in the wrong to think we should interpret the constitution in its traditional form, the fact is that the founding fathers lived in a different time so it would be preposterous to uphold traditions started in the 18th century. The Gun Control plan is the least that the President can do to uphold his swore oath to protect this nation and it’s people. 

Killing Constitution to Save Lives?

Photo Credit: New York Daily News

In present day America, the government desires to restrict the second amendment for the future prevention of public shootings. The effectiveness of this action is questionable and can potentially cause more damage than save innocent lives. With all the media coverage and numerous debates between political parties it is undeniable that gun control is a major topic in modern-day America. The recent shootings in the nation have made gun laws a priority by the democrats as seen in President Obama’s recent State of the Union Address. Democrats feel as though if there were some limits on guns, there would be less shootings in our nation. Republicans on the other hand generally support the second amendment and the right to bear arms. Personally, I believe that just because the limits on guns increase, it does not reduce the number of the mentally ill people in the nation who take the lives of innocent civilians. There is no logical mathematical formula to try to reduce the number of people killed by the hands of the violent mentally ill. If the insanity of a person is so far gone to desire to kill people, they will find a way whether it be by gun or by hand.

If the democrats succeeded in persuading the country to vote in favor of gun control, the second amendment would go against the people’s rights. The second amendment protects the right of all American’s to keep and bear arms; it provides American’s protection and guarantees a constitutional way of defense. A recent post on the New York Times revealed the thoughts of the people who only view guns as an offensive weapon and as a danger to the public. Senator Christopher Murphy, a democrat of Connecticut “is haunted” by the tragedy that recently occurred in Newtown, Connecticut. As a democrat of a state that just witnessed a terrible event, he proposed limitations on the bullets in a magazine. He supports this idea with the thought that “amateurs have trouble switching between magazines,” thinking that the interval of time between switching magazines can potentially provide the critical time needed to disarm the gunman. Influential lawmakers of both political parties have shown openness to this idea of limitations on the magazines. The lawmakers open to this idea all agree that there is a “difference between limits on magazine size and assault weapons ban;” Senator Angus King Jr. of Maine states that “it is the difference between appearance and functionality.” The idea of magazine limits has been appealing for many Senate Democrats up for re-election in the states that generally support gun rights. These Senate Democrats are torn over whether “a restriction on ammunition erodes the rights of law-abiding gun owners,” or is a “mild annoyance for those owners in the name of public safety.”

Photo Credit: ABC News

A restriction on the size of magazines seems to be a logical solution to resolve the debate on gun control. The gun-supporting Republicans are able to still keep their firearms and the gun-restricting Democrats are able to feel as though they are sparring lives. A restriction on ammunition does not contradict the second amendment because the second amendment states it is the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” it states nothing on the idea of ammunition. With ammunition laws, lives can potentially be spared and the second amendment can be preserved. Ammunition control as opposed to gun control serves as the bipartisan answer to help the nation agree on a solution.

The recent discussions about current events in government class this year have persuaded me to form my own ideas and propose possible solutions that would appeal to both political parties. The events in the country have furthered my knowledge on the course material being taught in class by seeing the actions of the government and understanding the reasoning behind the actions made by the politicians.