Visit our Facebook page and follow us on Facebook for our latest articles!
Today’s shooting at Umpqua community college in Oregon is the latest excuse for Obama and the Democrats to focus on their ideological opposition to guns and call for more federal “gun control” as their disguise to diminish the second amendment. However, there are three questions that arise, which are discussed in turn below. (1) Is it the proper role of the federal government to force its cultural gun views on all states having vastly differing cultures, especially since each locality can enact, and has enacted, the level of gun control that it deems fit for its society? (2) Even if it were the proper role of the federal government to address local gun violence issues, which it is not, what actions can be taken that are in conformity with our established rights of privacy and freedom? (3) If liberals are serious about addressing gun violence, they should first focus on cultural and economical issues such as family, illegal immigration, drugs, and a host of other things, since gun violence is more a socio-economical issue, rather than a second amendment issue.
At the outset, and before we start discussing the three points above, we should establish one premise for this discussion. We as a nation have decided to afford a constitutional right of bearing arms to individuals. Like many other decisions, that has its costs and benefits. The cost is, for example, easier access to guns for people who have no criminal background and are not mentally ill, but catch everyone by surprise and create a mass shooting. The right to bear arms is not, however, without its merits—including and especially on self protection. Posit, for example, the rape victim who is threatened by her abusive boyfriend and lives in constant fear of her life. Would a restraining order stop a bullet that is meant for her? (See Also NJ woman murdered by ex while awaiting gun permit)While the government cannot, and does not even purport to, guarantee protection for the lives of its citizens, it should not be able to tell them that they cannot protect their lives on their own.
If a person does not accept the second amendment right to bear arms, then a discussion of “gun control” is misleading and a mere disguise on their opposition to guns in general. They are advocating for the practical abolition of second amendment all together. That is not the topic of this post. This posts accepts the second amendments, and addresses the left’s call for more federal “gun control” under the second amendment.
- Local Gun Violence And Gun Control Are More Properly A State Issue.
As discussed in our other post relating to the Oregon shooting, our Constitution provides full autonomy to the States except under narrow circumstances, and envisions that States decide their internal affairs based on their preferences, culture and situation. This is a necessity in a large country with hundreds of millions of people and vastly different cultures. In this context, the liberal’s cry for more federal “gun control” is another instance of the liberal left attempting to force its ideology on the entire country—and even on states that do not share their views. While President Obama wastes no time in blaming the Congress for not passing more gun control laws, he fails to mention that individual societies, be it a State (such as Oregon) or a City, are allowed to provide whatever gun control measure they see fit (within the bounds of the Second Amendment). For example, Chicago has one of the toughest gun control laws in the country (and yet, they have the highest murder rate). More conservative states may prefer less gun control and accept its benefits and costs. If people of Oregon want tougher gun controls, they can certainly have their state or local government pass such laws. It is not President Obama’s role to force on all States what he thinks they should want. There is a reason we have a state/federal system of government. Would President Obama prefer that people of Alabama enforce their values (such as opposition to abortion) on the entire country?
- Even if it were the proper role of the federal government to address local gun violence issues, which it is not, what reasonable and achievable actions can be taken that conform to our established rights of privacy and freedom?
It is not as if even under the current Federal law, the mentally ill or felons or other identifiably dangerous people can simply show up to a store and buy guns. Federal law, 18 U.S. Code 922, provides that “It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person … has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution,” among many other red flags. So as federal law already removes the most dangerous elements of the society from owning guns, what is it that the liberal left wants short of practically removing guns in their entirety?
In contemplating an answer to the question raised immediately above, let us compare another aspect of our society that results in many deaths. While 30,000 people die in traffic accidents every year in the US, no one advocates that the federal government should set up a system to nationally determine driving pre-qualifications, or to conduct initial or periodic medical tests on people who may have heart attacks or strokes, or annual anger management courses, or even tougher driving tests. In refusing to take these measures, we recognize and respect the values of individual privacy and rights, and keeping Washington bureaucrats out of deciding the mental or physical health of individuals—even though more regulations and evaluations would certainly save thousands of lives and lead to much lower deaths. This lack of intrusive federal government measures on driving is not, however, a shortcoming in our system. That’s the balance that we as a society have agreed should be struck between practicality, individual rights, and government intrusiveness. It has its costs and benefits—but so do all approaches.
- Gun violence is more a socio-economic issue than a second amendment issue.
Finally, it is a misconception to blame the “gun violence epidemic” entirely on the second amendment. (We will address this issue in depth in another post). Gun violence is much more a cultural and economic issue than it is an issue of access to guns. By way of example, African Americans, who are about 13% of US population, are responsible for 50% of homicidal crimes. This is so even though African Americans have as much second amendment rights, and are as much subject to various gun control regulations, as Asians, Mexicans, and others. Gun regulations are not responsible for the disproportionate gun violence in the African American community–cultural and economic issues are. (Notably, Chicago has one of the toughest gun control laws in the country, and yet, they have one of the highest murder rate). Until the left is willing to recognize the cultural problems that exist in the society, resulting in a majority of children being raised in single parent families, high school drop out rates, open borders and illegal immigration, a culture of drug use, glorifying altercations with the police, among many others, no amount of gun control can eliminate a “gun violence epidemic.”
Share with others: