An Introspective Opinion on Gun Control
[Image via Pixabay.com]
Gun control is a controversial topic. For some it’s a nonstarter, for others it’s a necessity. For me, it’s a cause of internal conflict.
Allow me to explain. I am a liberal. I read liberal news, I vote for liberal (Democratic Party) candidates and I write liberal articles. But I support the second amendment, which is a very nonliberal stance.
Why is that? I’d like to think it’s in part because I’m an independent thinker. I don’t blindly follow the belief of others with whom I normally agree. I do believe that limiting access to weapons would decrease the mass shootings that currently plague American life. But at what cost?
At times soured by our political leaders, I fear a shift from democracy to dictatorship. I acknowledge this fear is largely irrational, and that American institutions (read: the military) would not allow this to happen. Both liberals and conservatives believe in liberty and freedom, which runs contrary to dictatorship, so nobody in the current political system would allow this to happen.
But perhaps a day will come when the environment is more suited to a president remaining in power past his (or her) two term limit. I hope not, for the country’s sake. If that day does come, it would be time for Americans, liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican, to take up arms against the government in keeping with our second amendment right. If law abiding citizens do not have weapons, they cannot defend themselves against a government without their best interests at heart.
But the conflict remains, though it seems like it would end there.
I really do believe, as I said before, limiting weapons access would prevent mass murders. I’ve heard the argument that law abiding citizens armed with guns would do so as well, but that idea feels reactionary to me. I don’t like the idea of waiting until a shooting is taking place to act to end it. In the time it takes for a law abiding citizen to register a threat and act to terminate said threat, the gunman may have already taken at least one life. That’s one life too many.
So at the end of the day, I support limited, or “common sense” gun control. I believe in universal background checks, and mandatory psychological evaluations. I support accountability for parents whose guns were used by their children in school shootings. I do not believe in banning so-called assault rifles, or semi-automatic weapons. If we don’t have those, we will stand no chance against an oppressive government.
What do you think? Am I nuts? Did I overlook something? Agree or disagree, I'd love to hear what you think in the comments, my only request is to maintain a sense of civility.
Guns are not a left-right issue they are a pro-gun anti-gun issue. Nothing wrong with being a pro-gun liberal.
Psychological evaluations are a fine idea when there is cause to evaluate but you cannot force all people to submit to evaluations without cause in order to exercise a constitutionally protect right. If we allowed this we could allow psychological evaluations for journalists before they report the news.
The problem with background checks is registration. Background checks to buy a gun is one thing but keeping a data base of what we buy and where we keep our guns is unconstitutional. Furthermore there is nothing that stops people from making firearms at home.
I don't take as much issue with requiring journalists to be evaluated to ensure that they are are of sound mind as you may expect, I see them as guardians of truth and must be able to preform that role responsibly. I do think there is a distinction between exercising the right to bear arms and the right to write news. They both come with distinct responsibilities, but the consequences of irresponsibility are less dire with journalism. An irresponsible journalist can report a false story, which will then either get retracted or fact checked by other reporters. An irresonsible gun owner can kill somebody or have their gun used in a crime. An evaluation seems excessive for a situation without these sort of consequences, but I'd be willing to consider it if reporters actions became more consequential.
I understand the comparison between the two freedoms, but we do not place unlimited freedom on the press either. We have libel and slander laws to prevent them from telling falsehoods. In court, they can be compelled to reveal sources if they are pertinent to national security. Additionally, journalists can lose their platform without government intervention if they consistantly engage in irresponsible or disturbed behavoir. There is currently no non-governmental discourse against irresponsible gun owners, and there isn't a mechanism for one to be created.
I do not pretend to know all the answers, but I don't think that background checks and independant psychological evaluations are unreasonable. I'm putting emphasis on independant because, if conducted by the government, the evaluations could result in a false diagnosis in order to infringe upon one's rights, which is an obvious problem. I realize the due process implications can be great, but, I feel they are outweighed by the potential for saving lives. That's just my opinion, though.
Keeping tabs on who owns guns can also be a problem, but in the end you have to make a descision on if it outweighs the crime solving benefits. It appears you have decided it does. I'm undecided.
I wish there was another way to be proactive about gun violence, but I don't see it. Maybe you have an idea that I haven't thought of. If you do, I'd love to hear it. If not, I'll continue looking for a better option, in hopes that the problem can be solved another way.
Congratulations @youngjae! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP