10-07-2015, 08:43 PM
(10-07-2015, 06:59 PM)Blindgreed1 Wrote: People that want the ability to use deadly force to protect themselves need to reconcile themselves to the fact that the 2nd Amendment explicitly includes the words "well-regulated" as well as "right to bear arms."
Exactly.
At present, Americans can buy guns easily and with very few restrictions. It is not well regulated in this country, and it should be, as specified in the Second Amendment.
Currently,
-There is no national license required for gun ownership; no gun registry (and a law expressly stating the Fed won't create one).
-There is no ban on any type of guns or ammo capacity.
-There is no limit as to how many guns a person can own.
-There is no mandate for states to provide mental illness records to the national background check database - NICS.
-There are easy opportunities/loopholes for people who fail a background check to purchase guns legally via the internet or via a private transaction at a gun show or other location.
-There is no national child safety storage act.
Etc...
AND STILL, the NRA and its owned politicians, along with extremist gun enthusiasts, cried and blocked the passage of something 90% of the population supported and didn't infringe on law-abiding gun owners in any way - universal background checks.
AND STILL, after yet another shooting massacre, the NRA and its owned politicians, along with extremist gun enthusiasts, bitch and again object to proposed universal background checks and wait times (unless they're given special privileges for already owning and/or carrying guns). It's asinine and petty.
To date, I've always been supportive of the right to bear arms, under a well-regulated national system with states controlling most of the administration and enforcement. I've supported universal background checks, mandatory state reporting into NICS, education and public awareness campaigns, funding for gun violence research, safety storage / child gun protection laws, and stricter enforcement of existing gun laws. Those are all regulatory measures aimed at reducing gun violence; regulatory measures which do not call for restricting or banning arms and ammo, nor establishing a national gun registry.
Since even those regulation proposals -- which don't infringe on law-abiding gun owners' rights to bear arms in any way -- are automatically opposed by the powerful NRA, its owned politicians, and extremist gun owners, I'm fully in favor of Executive Action to get some/all of them pushed through. Alternately, a Supreme Court case ruling that lack of some/all such measures is a violation of the Second Amendment's "well regulated" provision could do the trick.
I think a lot of other Americans who aren't on either extreme of this issue feel the same. I'm more optimistic than MS that positive gun safety/control changes will be made in the near future.
It's too bad that the NRA and some gun lovers are making it a paranoid all or nothing issue and refuse to acknowledge the full Second Amendment. It would have been a great show of rationality and a public relations victory for them to have supported at least universal background checks after Newtown (there were no restrictions on licensed gun dealers or gun-types/ammo included in the final draft of that bill, despite rhetoric to the contrary by some gun enthusiasts).
It is encouraging to see some 2016 presidential hopefuls making gun safety/control a key part of their platforms.