Skip to content

Gun Control: Being Armed is Not Being Safe

by on December 8, 2015

With the recent flurry of mass shootings happening around the world, gun control debates have sparked up with more fervor than ever. Along with calls to further restrict the selling of guns, there are those who make the argument that more “good” citizens with guns will lead to a safer country. There is a pretty clear line of division between the two sides to this debate. For the first time since 1920, the New York Times ran an editorial on the front page that demanded a tighter restraint on guns being bought and sold in this country.

Sure, the second amendment is the right to bear arms. That doesn’t mean selling heavy artillery to barely checked citizens. Why the hell does an every day citizen need to be able to buy a semiautomatic? It’s ridiculous to use the second amendment as an end all argument. More ‘good’ people with guns is clearly not the answer. How is one even to distinguish who a good person is or if they won’t snap and shoot up support centers like in San Bernardo?

I think it’s, to be blunt, fucked up that people like Jerry Falwell, president of Liberty University, can stand up in front of a huge student body and urge students to arm themselves and “end Muslims”, telling his students to support Islamophobia. I think guns DO need to be cracked down on. I think that semiautomatics definitely shouldn’t be sold to whoever with a license and I think that the second amendment needs to be revisited.

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

One Comment
  1. I certainly agree that gun control is a prevalent issue in our country right now that needs to be cracked down on. There’s a reason nearly every politician running for a presidential nomination is discussing the topic.

    I’m glad that the NYT ran the editorial demanding further restraint on gun sales. They talked about why the current system is flawed and needs to be fixed, and suggested how it could be fixed as well. Sitting around and complaining about an issue isn’t going to get anything accomplished. Offering a solution though is helpful. For the millions of people who read the NYT, many of them will resonate with the NYT’s words and will apply them in debate. Maybe politicians read the editorial and did the same. Either way, offering a solution can only help.

    I agree that we need a more comprehensive check-point system to keep just about anyone from being able to purchase a gun. It’s too often that our constitution is used as justification for our flawed systems in place. “The right to bear arms” is vague enough that our government can rally behind it as their theology for guns being so accessible. Though history is quite insightful at times, there needs to be a change of thinking in that history isn’t always right in terms of determining how we address sensitive issues that are effective our country NOW. Especially when historical citations, such as the constitution, have amendments such as the second amendment that leaves ambiguity and furthermore wiggle room for lawmakers to defend our current gun-purchasing system.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: