Arms Advocates Gunning for Personal Protection

19

Author: Sam Byrne

A current issue that many Americans struggle with today is whether or not to enforce gun control on a national level. While there have been varying arguments for and against stricter gun laws, the one argument that our Constitution entitles citizens to unrestricted gun ownership and use is among the most controversial standpoints. Many Americans feel that implementing stricter gun control laws would compromise their protection under the Constitution’s Second Amendment and jeopardize their First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

Gun owners who love to throw around the slogan “the right to bear arms” wouldn’t be able to recite the preceding clause of this now trite phrase. This critical and often overlooked first clause of the Second Amendment designates the right to operate firearms primarily to “a well regulated Militia” under the pretense that this privilege is “necessary to the security of a free State.” The misinterpretation of our Constitution has been taken too far: Amendments should never be used as a means of justifying murder.

If you feel comforted by the fact that guns are not sold to individuals with a criminal record, realize that only seven out of 50 states require a background check before the sale of weapons at gun shows, according to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Mayor Bloomberg of New York City sent undercover investigators to a gun show in Phoenix, Arizona just 15 days after the “Tuscon Massacre” in which Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords and 18 other civilians were shot.

According to Marc Lacey, a reporter for the New York Times, Bloomberg’s investigator approached a seller preparing to buy a gun and asked if the seller was obligated to perform a background check. The seller replied, “No,” after which the investigator revealed, “That’s good because I probably couldn’t pass one, you know what I mean?” The seller smiled, asked for an Arizona state ID and said, “That’s all I need.”

TheTruthAboutGuns.com, a website that supports the sale of high-capacity magazines, reports that Jared Lee Loughner, the shooter at the Tucson massacre,  had a weapon with the capability of firing 30 bullets in seven seconds.

According to the Pima County Sheriff, Loughner fired 31 bullets in 15 seconds. It is irrelevant whether Laughner emptied his magazine in seven or 15 seconds, however. The focus should be directed towards why anyone would sell any customer a gun that has the potential to murder 33 people in seven or 15 seconds.

It’s not 1789 anymore. We’re not shooting crows, we’re murdering human beings. Hunting guns are perfectly legitimate if used to hunt a turkey and put dinner on the table, but gun distribution becomes a problem when we start hunting people.

The NRA homepage asserts that “there is abundant evidence that our cities are safer with guns,” and yet over 500 city mayors have signed on as advocates for gun control in America.

Mayors are the ones who attend the countless funerals, direct tens of thousands of public safety personnel to solve the problems of gun violence and are required to budget more and more funding toward our police forces. Mayor Menino of Boston, Massachusetts gave a speech on the 11th anniversary of the Columbine High School shootings, in which he stated on OpenLeft.org, “There are those who fail to truly read the Second amendment. They ignore the need for a common sense approach to guns in our communities.”

Gun advocates might argue that, though the Founders had a different vision of the Second Amendment than we do now, the meaning of the First Amendment has not changed over time. The freedom to express oneself, with respect to the argument against gun control, has been translated into the freedom to express one’s desire for security with a weapon for protection. However, the freedom of expression does not include the freedom to shoot those with a differing opinion.

Most of America’s gun owners crave weapons for personal protection because, for some reason, they do not feel safe without them. There is undoubtedly a strong element of fear that factors into the need to purchase a weapon. There is, however, a difference between protection and murder as a means of protection.

People are murdered by a single trigger pull — that’s all it takes. If you feel the need to express your wish for personal security, buy a taser or a baseball bat. If your security is ever threatened, a taser will save your life, whereas a gun will take a life.

Behind all this fear for personal protection rights is a powerful marketing campaign to boost gun sales and manufacturing profits. It’s ironic that the increase of guns and subsequent deaths in America only creates more fear, which, in turn, drives up gun sales, thus fueling the gun manufacturing machine.

The ugly truth, though, is that this financial profit results, as Bill Marsh points out in the New York Times, in the deaths of more than 80 people each day from domestic gun shots. Eighty people died yesterday, 80 people died today and 80 people will die tomorrow.

Menino explained that “the best way to respond to the heinous acts of violence we have seen in our nation’s history is to prevent them from ever happening again,” advocating gun control in cities particularly, not only as a government official, but as a resident of an urban community.

He understands what the gun rights advocates seem to miss: that the only way to stop these killings is to take action now and stop the cycle of violent escalation before we reach a level of anarchy the Founding Fathers could never have predicted.

 

Sam Byrne is an undeclared first year. She can be reached at sbyrne@oxy.edu.

This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.

Loading

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here