This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Respond to someone from the period you are not in. Try to pick someone who you disagree with. Respond to their post using evidence and citing your sources.
posted by M Aby @ 12:41 PM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
31 Comments:
Kayla-
I disagree with your opinion that the second amendment should be incorporated to the states. While it is important to give citizens their full rights, I believe there is a reason as to why the right to bear arms has not been incorporated, and that reason is simply to protect the safety of Americans to the best of the nation’s ability. Handguns are the most common weapon for murders in the United States and also play a large role in burglaries and assaults; in 2005, 477,000 people were victims of handgun crimes and over 11,000 were killed by handguns (2). By allowing every citizen to have the right to gun-ownership, we run the risk of increasing these numbers. You mentioned that it is not fair to allow the possession of handguns in one city but not another, which I agree is not very justifiable. However, I have more support for outlawing possession of a handgun without a proper license and background check in ALL cities, rather than just a few.
I definitely do not think that every American should have the right to own a gun, and I do think it is okay to limit the kinds of guns that can be owned in the household. You stated that people who have committed crimes involving a gun should not be able to own a gun. I agree with this, but I would even extend it to say that no one who has committed a serious crime in general may be allowed to own a gun, whether the crime involved a gun or not. Of course, misdemeanors and driving tickets would not be included in this restriction, in my opinion. So far, the United States is not one of the worst nations in regards to gun crime, and I think that by not incorporating the Second Amendment, we can stay out of that list for a longer amount of time (3).
I do fully agree with the statement you made that “those who actually follow these laws have a gun for their own protection, while those who buy guns illegally present a larger problem and are the ones who are using them illegally.” In fact, some people will argue (with statistics to prove it) that non-Right-to-Carry areas are actually safer to live in than Right-to-Carry cities (1). This definitely demonstrates that gun crimes will still be a problem to the nation, regardless of the incorporation or non-incorporation of the Second Amendment, but I still believe that in order to protect ordinary living environments, there must be tough restrictions on gun-ownership.
1. http://newsbusters.org/node/9140
2. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm
3. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/index.html
Kayla:
Like Alyssa, I disagree with you. I do not think gun restrictions should have been incorporated to the states a long time ago. I realize that the Second Amendment allows people to bear arms at their pleasure. This part of the constitution, like many other parts, is fairly vague and can be misinterpreted. This reiterates the point that the constitution was formed a little more than 200 years ago. People had very different lifestyles. In that time, obtaining a gun was necessary. It was just the norm. (1) I do not believe everyone in the country today should be able to obtain fire arms. Times have significantly changed. People have become less responsible with their guns. Why do we have children dying from guns today but not 200 years ago? Most Youth suicides are because of access to their parents guns. (2) I think incorporating the Second Amendment to the states will only allow irresponsible adults to obtain fire arms. Having different state gun rights will only make some states less safe than others. According to Christiangunowner.com, California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey have the worst gun restrictions. (3) Consider that they have some of the most populated cities. I.E. New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Congressmen from these states will only want to respond to their constituents. They will push for rights that allow gun owners to keep obtaining their guns. We need equal gun restrictions nation wide. More importantly, we need to crack down on youth gun possession. This is more than just punishing them. We need to somehow have these kids go to school and stay out of the streets. We have been battling this issue for years. Guns will never disappear.
I agree with you that felons and criminals should be prevented from obtaining a gun. Although constitutionally we all have the right to own a gun, felons and ex-criminals should not be able to. You mentioned that felons should have restrictions on their guns. Felons should not be able to obtain guns. I compare it to alcohol and drug addiction. People that have gone to rehab for their addictions do not allow themselves obtain any sort of alcohol or drugs. This is similar to guns. People that go to jail for illegal gun usage should not be entitled to the same gun rights afterwards. They violated their rights. I also agree with you that the people who actually buy guns legally use them legally. The problem is the people who violated their gun rights by obtaining them illegally and using them illegally.
Citations:
1.
http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/autumn00/gunsmith.cfm
2.
http://www.christiangunowner.com/worst_gun_laws.html
3. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/youth-access/index.html
In Response to Joe Plutt's post..
I generally agree with what Joe was saying. I also don't believe that the second amendment should be applied to the states. There are around 30,000 gun deaths a year and homicides account for about 16,000 gun deaths in the US annually (1). It just doesn't make sense after all these years to now incorporate the second amendment when the time period that it was actually necessary was over a hundred years ago. "If the court now "incorporates" the Second Amendment right via the "due process" guarantee, that will be progress because it will enlarge the sphere of protected liberty. And even Justice Antonin Scalia, who recognizes that "substantive due process" is intellectual applesauce, thinks it is too late to repudiate 137 years of the stuff" (2). It would be impractical to incorporate the law to the states, when guns are dangerous to have, not just because people kill each other with them but that people don't always handle them responsibility when they are handling them. I also agree with Joe when he talked about having strict rights for people with guns. It is just not logical if there are not strict rules on guns. Guns kill 30,000 people a year, this is obviously a serious issue with that large of a number dying annually. Everybody who owns a gun needs a permit and people shouldn't mind registering their gun if they have nothing to hide in order to keep those safe in their community. The government needs to help keep irresponsible people away from guns, not increase the chances that someone who shouldn't have a gun, get one in their clutches. It's the government's job to help protect its citizens. Even though there was the Supreme Court case from two years ago that gave residents of Washington D.C. the right to own a gun, this was a poor decision on the Supreme Court's part and the whole country should be considered here and the affects it will have on citizens with guns so much easier to get a hold of.
1-http://blogalwarning.wordpress.com/2009/03/26/30000-gun-deaths-per-year/
2-http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030502873.html
3-http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/09/30/ldt.2nd.amendment.rights.cnn?iref=allsearch
Jacob:
I like most of what you said. In my opinion, handguns are absolutely pointless. I do not disagree whatsoever with you on the fact that we should work towards a day when we don't sell them at all. The only reason to buy a handgun now is to defend oneself from other handguns. People don’t hunt with handguns, they commit crimes with them. So, wouldn't it make sense to get rid of all the handguns then? I believe it would. However, simply banning guns is not the answer. Hear me out, though.
As you referred to South Korea I was thinking, "How can the U.S. get to that point?" Well, it’s a mindset. I’m sure from the time little South Korean children are born, they are taught that guns are bad. Not just bad, but terrible. I was taught the same thing and I’m not running around with a handgun. However, not every child in America has the parenting I did or lives in West Bloomington like I do. Many children are constantly exposed to gun violence and then in turn purchase a gun to protect themselves. It seems as if banning guns would get rid of them, but as I pointed out in my post, it wouldn’t. In Chicago, gun-violence has risen since guns were banned.(1) It’s the same situation in England(2) as well as in Australia.(3) These two countries are examples of why banning guns nationally doesn’t work. They have the perfect conditions for a test/case study. “Australia and Britain are surrounded by water” and criminals cannot easily smuggle them into the country like in Canada (the situation in Canada is this: Canada implemented strict gun control laws and their violence is rising like the other countries I cited, but they can shove some of the blame on the U.S. which I believe the U.S. is somewhat deserving of).(3) Yet, after the new laws, gun violence is rising.
Obviously people in Chicago can just go to another state and purchase handguns if they really wanted to. But there are ways of buying guns illegally in the city. To say there handgun sales are not going on in Chicago would be a very naïve thing to say. As I also pointed out in my post, if guns are only available in Chicago illegally then the majority of people who will buy them are criminals. If they aren’t “criminals” then they are people who at least are in a mindset that think it is okay to break the law which means they are more likely to do other illegal things with their guns. Now the situation is all the law-abiding citizens in Chicago don’t have guns and criminals do.
Also, and I know this isn’t the best parallel, but I’ll give it a shot. As we all know, weed is illegal in the United States. Marijuana is the largest cash crop in America. It is more valuable than corn and wheat combined. Banning the drug has not made it go away. In fact, “Despite intensive eradication efforts domestic marijuana production has increased ten fold over the last 25 years.” I understand this is different but what I wanted to point out is that simply passing a law that says, “This is illegal” will not work. There needs to be more done.
Banning guns shouldn’t be the first step of the process. I think we need to focus more of an effort on cracking down on the illegal sales of guns first. Also, I think there are other ways to get there. Britain is now banning the sale of toy-guns. I personally enjoyed the benefits of being able to play with plastic toys and not grow up to kill people but if this law would work, I’d be all for it. A program I found to be effective is Project Safe Neighborhoods. In 82 cities where PSN programs have been initiated, they found a 4.1% drop in violent crimes compared to a .9% in 170 non-PSN cities.(4) PSN does community work such as advocacy, outreach, and training prosecutors. It’s a long road to get the U.S. to be handgun free but I think it can be done. Once there is a mindset across the U.S. that handguns aren’t okay, THEN they should be banned. It seems as if it would be a stepping stone to ban them first, but looking at other nation’s crime history I don’t believe this would work.
1-http://www.dailyillini.com/blogs/different-perspectives/2010/03/03/ending-gun-violence-doesn-t-start-with-guns-it-starts-with-t
2-http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=2
3-http://www.americandaily.com/article/1340
4-http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/prevention/project-safe-neighborhoods.htm
Solveig-
I disagree with you. I think that the 2nd Amendment should most definitely be incorporated to the states. If you deprive the states of this right, then the other incorporated Amendments should also not be incorporated. I see no difference between allowing anyone to carry a gun (1st Amendment), and allowing anyone to say what they want (2nd Amendment). More importantly, the Constitution says that states can not deprive people of “life, liberty, or property.” (1). Disallowing the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms would be enabling the states to deprive citizens the right to own/carry a gun, which is unconstitutional.
Secondly, I disagree with your thinking that usage of guns for self-protection is useless. While there are bad people put there who use guns solely to kill people and exhibit violence, there are also many gun owners who feel the need to have a gun to protect themselves from the people first mentioned. In 1993 it had been estimated that civilians used guns in self-defense situations about 2.5 million times in that year (2). 17 years later, you can only imagine how many more cases there have been in which guns have saved peoples lives.
Lastly, I strongly believe that even if guns were to be banned, or even severely controlled, the problem would not decrease by a significant amount, and it most definitely will never go away. I believe a parallel can be drawn between the gun control issue and illegal drugs. Let’s look at marijuana for example. In the United States in 2004, over 40% of the population had used marijuana, even though it is completely illegal (and god knows marijuana usage has only increased since 2004) (3). Just because you ban or regulate something does not mean that it’s not going to happen. The people who really feel the need to own and carry a gun will find a way to do so. So why not just let them have their RIGHT to carry and own a gun, and deal with the consequences later. Unfortunately, Solveig, I think you may be moving to Canada.
(1)http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/02/scotus.gun.control/index.html?iref=allsearch
(2)http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=LdmRlTBTh5PhYGrD1cQQLhS4hft0qTrXt1QfnG9syjFhJnzFSXDv!1770153132!1099363101?docId=5000567174
(3) http://www.alcohol-and-drug-guide.com/marijuana-use-usa.html
I disagree with Kayla’s argument. The Second Amendment is probably one of the only amendments that should not be incorporated to the states in my opinion, and in the opinions of many others. The Second Amendment is a long-standing argument in the United States, and is an outdated and obsolete argument for people keeping their firearms. Despite some exceptions, as I will mention later, the Amendment should stay where it is, and not be given directly to the states.
Kayla mentioned that by not incorporating the amendment, you deprive citizens of their rights, but this is an inaccurate statement. There are eight firearms produced in the United States every minute (1). Three of these are handguns, which are easy to conceal and cheaper for purchase (1). In 1995 alone, there were close to 300,000 handguns produced (1). This skyrocketing production of handguns is dangerous, since handguns are used in a staggering amount of crimes such as rape and murder itself. By incorporating the Second Amendment, you simply give criminals a boost in their ability to carry concealed handguns and use them for ill. McDonald’s case is a unique case, where certain circumstances lead to his belief that he should own a firearm (2). It’s questionable whether this should be given to all citizens, since it is a proven fact that the more guns are in circulation, the more crimes are committed.
Kayla’s argument that all citizens should be able to own a gun is also a bit myopic. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey of 1993-2001 by the Department of Justice, 60.5% of violent crime was reported to have been in self-defense (3). These injuries mostly occurred with the person who owned the gun. Self-inflicted injury was common, and the guns did little to actually stop the crimes from happening (3).
I am not arguing for guns to be eliminated in the United States. I understand that in many rural areas, having a rifle for hunting or other purposes is important, and I understand that some people enjoy hunting in a controlled environment. However, I disagree that ALL citizens should be able to carry a weapon, particularly a handgun, around in public, even if it is concealed. It presents too much of a danger to society, and the Second Amendment is intended to help the United States, not hurt it.
As far as the McDonald case is concerned, I agree with Kayla that guns should not be allowed in one city but not in another. For this reason, I support more stringent gun control laws that would make everything a more even playing field. I believe urban centers should not have guns in the quantity that they have them now.
1) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/more/facts.html
2) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
3) http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1770/Guns-Injuries-Fatalities-GUNS-SELF-DEFENSE-STUDIES.html
In response to Ben L.:
I thought your response to this question was very well crafted, and made me reconsider what I had written before. I think the reason that this topic is so hard to make a call on is because of the exact reasons you brought up. Banning guns in theory sounds like a really good idea, and in my post I talked about how this would probably be the best choice for Chicago, but after reading what you had to say, especially the quote, “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” I have had to somewhat reconsider. (1) The facts you mentioned about the 1997 situation in England was very compelling to me. Gun related violence has increased regardless of the fact that guns have been banned.
I think that gun banning has become basically a catch-22. On one hand, if guns are made illegal everywhere, they will still exist, and the only real difference will be the fact that people will have them illegally, and they will probably, for the most part, be in the hands of criminals who feel as though they can easily use their weapons, because no one else will have similar weapons to defend themselves. Although on the other side, if we were to make guns available to everyone, who knows what could happen to the United States. If you look at places in the South like Tennessee where recently there has been a debate over allowing guns in restaurants and bars, it is obvious restaurant and bar owners don't want guns in their premises because they know of the repercussions this will have. (2). It means more accidental shootings, and more unsafe nights involving heated situations and gunfire. The thing about guns, is that they are much more fatal that fists or even knives. Guns these days are manufactured to kill, and when a very angry individual, or one working in haste because they are in a fearful situation, gets a hold of one, they can cause very serious harm and injury (3).
When it comes to the Second Amendment issue, I would have to say I disagree with you. I believe the the Second Amendment’s intention was for militias, and not for the individual owning of a gun. Even though there was the Supreme Courts 2008 overturning of Washington D.C.’s ban on guns in the home, I still think that gun banning isn’t necessarily a bad choice (4). I would like to think that in the future, rulings on guns are made in the way that best promotes safety in society. Whether this being making guns available, or banning them if some information is there to support a decline of crime, I hope that the courts and the legislature main goal is to lower crime rates, rather than trying to interpret what the constitution says “correctly.” To me, creating a safe environment is more important than following a rather unclear Amendment, which is arguably not even relevant to today’s society.
1. http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3083618&page=1
2. http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2010/mar/14/editorial-guns-in-bars-doubts-erased/
3. http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/mag/article.pl?articleId=33129
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12fri3.html
In response to Alyssa:
I don’t think that the Supreme Court cannot incorporate the Second Amendment. Although I’m not a huge proponent of guns the founders gave citizens of America the right to bear arms (to what degree is up to interpretation). It isn’t the incorporation that I dislike but rather the idea of owning firearms. If the question is one of pure incorporation I believe that in order to maintain the validity of the incorporation of other rights, the right to bear arms must also be incorporated on the state and local level. Precedent is definitely on the side of incorporation (3). Almost all other Constitutional rights have been incorporated and the opinions of those court cases all cited the 14th Amendment for incorporation (3). It would be pretty hard to argue that we shouldn’t incorporate the 2nd Amendment when almost all of the other amendments have been incorporated. Unfortunately, the common interpretation of the Constitution is on the side of the NRA this time. (2)
If we are only considering the question of incorporation then I would certainly agree with a decision favoring McDonald. However, incorporation is only the first question. There is also the question of if there can be restrictions on owning weapons. I agree with Alyssa on this point. There should be restrictions. Incorporation doesn’t mean the end of any restrictions of a right. (1) You still have to get permits to protest and to hold demonstrations and yet the freedom of speech has been incorporated, the government can restrict certain messages (shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater, or obscenities) and they can restrict certain manners of speech (burning draft cards). (1) Those restrictions are still viable even though the freedom of speech has been incorporated; “…a state may forbid both speech and publication if they have a tendency to result in action dangerous to public security, even though such utterances create no clear and present danger.” (1) The freedom of speech can be analogous to the freedom to bear arms (unlike the contraception example, that analogy is fallacious in so many ways). Guns naturally present a clear and present danger, as the sole purpose of a gun is to kill or injure something. Thus, it should easier for states and cities to restrict gun use under the clear and present danger doctrine. This case would not determine if the requirement of permits is unconstitutional, just if an overall ban goes against the Constitution. (2)
(1 )http://www.oyez.org/cases/1901-1939/1922/1922_19/
(2) http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2010/03/09/supreme-court-takes-aim-at-chicago-gun-ban.html
(3) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203746.html
In response to Katie:
I agree with you that I would be extremely uncomfortable if my neighbor could legally own a machine gun. What would the purpose be of owning a machine gun other than to open fire and kill tons of people. I also agree that guns should be given to those that work to protect the people. You said that you do not want the Second Amendment incorporated to the states, and you bring up a lot of good arguments, but trying to take away the right to own a gun has many consequences (1). The Prohibition and the current debate over marijuana use just shows that even if something is banned, the problem will still exist. A black market will be created and guns will still be in the hands of the people we least prefer.
You also bring up the statistics of gun related deaths in 1998 totally almost 31,000 people (2). It makes me sick thinking about the number of murders and suicides that occur as the result of guns, however, I do not believe denying the incorporation of the Second Amendment to the states would prevent these deaths from happening. If someone is determined to kill another person they will find ways other than guns, and same for suicides. The only statistic I think it would reduce is the 3% that are due to accidents (2). I think it is important to save as many lives as we can, I just see this argument in particular as a weak one because these people would still die, even without guns.
The big debate over this amendment is whether the intent was to give all citizens the right to bear arms, or if it was aimed at the armed forces in particular. Since our society is completely based off the Constitution, and the other rights are directed at the citizens themselves, I do not believe one can think the Second Amendment does not apply to citizens as well. I think the only way to resolve this controversy is for Congress to create a new amendment that addresses the issue, but I do not think this is likely of happening because of the number of people on both sides of the issue.
Sources:
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t= 1&islist=false&id=124210232&m=124228257
2. http://college.cengage.com/english/resources/research_guide/2e/resources/case_study.html
In Response to Jackie,
I have to disagree with your opinion that the gun rights should be incorporated to the states. I think this interpretation has expanded too much from the original Second Amendment, which was written to protect citizens from the federal government. When the amendment was written, a firearm had a much different meaning. It was implied that bearing arms was necessary to keeping a well regulated militia (1). In today’s world, a militia is not needed to protect the state. Many guns in today’s world lead to an expansion of crime and death. A person’s right to own a gun may be important to them, but that shouldn’t infringe on my right to live. The petitioners in this case claim they deserve a firearm for protection (2). But does protection in today’s society mean shooting someone who may be a threat to you? The constitution was created to allow states to enact regulations that suit their community (3). If a city believes they can increase public safety and decrease crime with some form of gun control, they should have the right to impose regulation.
You argue that the ban in Chicago didn’t work to reduce crime and allows people to be vulnerable to criminals. If this is true, it is up to the city, not the courts to decide what is best for the city. The city can investigate the law and see what is working and what is not. They know what the city needs more than the court does. The law has been in effect for over 25 years, so it must have some benefit to the community or the city would have repealed it by now. You say the crime rate has increased in Chicago over the years. However, there are specific reasons for this unrelated to the ban. According to criminologist James Alan Fox, homicides have involved criminals targeting other criminals in crack-related gang wars that have exploded among large cities (4). This has happened all across the country. In contrast, homicides in residential areas have declined, especially those involving family members as perpetrators (4). The Chicago gun ban was meant to protect people using them in domestic disputes, not wipe out all criminal activity. There has been an estimated 1,000 fewer murders in Chicago because of the handgun ban. To me, this is reason enough to show that applying the Second Amendment to the states will take away protections that save American lives. While I certainly don’t want my government controlling what is good for me, they certainly have my consent to try and protect me.
1. http://www.guncite.com/journals/kmich.html#fn16
2. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/04/ED2M1CATLC.DTL
3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
4. http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/states-rights-vs-gun-rights/
In response to Dan,
While I see your point that the government was just trying to make the community safer, I don’t think this ban helps to clean up the streets. In Heller v. the District of Columbia the Court upheld the right of the individual outside of the militia to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes (1). Now since the law in the District of Columbia has been enacted there has only been one year in which the homicide rate fell below what it was in 1976. And in addition for 15 of the 29 years since the ban, the District of Columbia has has either the first or second highest murder rate. (2). The man asking for these rights is an old man who wants to protect his house from thugs. He wants to be able to protect his family from people who have threatened to kill him. I think the fact that the NRA was so involved my have taken away from this fact. His house has been broken into three times, one of which was to steal his hunting rifle. (3). If anything this becomes a slippery slope for criminals. What is to stop them from breaking into your house to steal your hunting rifles like they did to McDonald? Won’t it be more dangerous if there were more people like these thugs stealing hunting rifles? “He is also a community activist who has been threatened for his efforts to rid his neighborhood of drug dealers and other criminals.” (4).
(1) http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_290
(2) http://blog.heritage.org/2008/03/17/morning-bell-the-right-to-self-defense/
(3) http://www.economist.com/world/united-states/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15610140
In Response to Sara O.
Sara,
I disagree with your statement that the Second Amendment should be incorporated and applied to the states. In your blog post, you quoted research studies that state that “gun ownership does not cause crime” (1). That maybe true, however, you cannot deny that there is a correlation between gun ownership levels and the number of gun-related deaths. Martin Killias, a professor of Criminology at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland stated, "The level of gun ownership worldwide is directly related to murder and suicide rates and specifically to the level of death by gunfire" (2).
Already, the United States is the leader when it comes to gun-related deaths. Within a government study of a group of 36 countries, of the 88,649 gun deaths reported, the United States accounted for 45 percent of the deaths (3). This study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia (3). And all of these deaths are accounted for before any talk of incorporating the Second Amendment to state law.
In your blog post, you also stated that “Otis McDonald owning a gun is not about enhancing his ability to kill someone; it is about feeling safe. He merely wants the ability to prevent and stop break-ins in his home” (1). Although I understand Mr. McDonald’s want to feel safe and protected within his own home, I feel that there are other precautions that he could take, other than purchasing a gun. He could change the locks to his house, or purchase a home security system. Both of these methods are ways to prevent future break-ins and allow Mr. McDonald to feel safe without the need of a firearm.
Work Cited:
1. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1594687385816014274&postID=8605041662339484374
2. http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
3. http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html
In response to Jackie-
I disagree. It’s always interesting to me that people point to the 2nd Amendment and claim that it irrefutably provides the basis for the right to carry a weapon. The amendment does not say that any individual should be able to carry a weapon, it simply states that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” (1) The reason why the founding fathers drafted this amendment was because they were still concerned with the threat of invasion from a foreign country. In which case, the citizens would have been able to arm themselves and fight against this outside force. That, is a completely justified and plausible argument. However, a foreign army hasn’t set foot on U.S soil in around 200 hundred years, so it’s difficult to argue that the law should be relevant today. It’s sort of like the little-known 3rd Amendment, regarding the quartering of troops. We don’t really need to worry about that now, so it doesn’t particularly matter. The only problem is that people are misconstruing the text of the Bill of Rights, claiming that it gives any old person the right to go strolling down Old Shakopee with gas-powered semi-automatic pistol tucked away in their pants, claiming it’s for “self-defense”. Self-defense? Are you kidding? From what? I don’t know about anyone else, but it’s been a long time since I’ve seen any hard core criminals rolling up and down West Bloomington.
And another thing- do burglars really deserve to get shot? Now, if they present an obvious danger and are threatening the homeowner with physical violence- that’s one thing. But most people who break into a house get scared away at the tiniest noise. Do they deserve death? If they’re desperate because they don’t have enough money to eat or sleep under a shelter, should they take a round in the chest because they break into someone’s house? I don’t think so. And if this recent case ends up with the States being able to have complete control over gun laws (2), there could be some difficulties. I hate guns. I don’t think that the average American is responsible enough to carry a weapon, and that the more guns are on the streets the more people will die from guns (3). That is a fact. I honestly do not understand America’s fascination with these weapons, and I don’t in any way condone it.
(1) http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/FO3020630212/
(2) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
(3) http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
Sara –
I must disagree with you on your post. I feel that the second Amendment should not be incorporated into the McDonald case. Though I agree with you that gun rights should be nationalized and not decided on a state by state basis, I believe that they should be completely restricted, because frankly I don’t believe that we have these rights at all. I came to this conclusion by looking at the Second Amendment itself. The “right to bear arms” was created because in the 18th century we didn’t have the military that we do today (1). Our military was comprised of civilians, so naturally they needed the right to bear arms in order to defend their country. It was for military purposes! (1). But it does not say anything about guaranteeing ‘individual rights’.
I think the argument that it should be incorporated under the 14th amendment is irrelevant. I feel this way because of the vague phrasing of the Second Amendment (2). The main difference between this amendment and the others is stated by attorney James Feldman, speaking for Chicago. "Firearms, unlike anything else that is the subject of a provision of the Bill of Rights, are designed to injure and kill." (2). Although one could argue for individual rights are ‘infringed upon’, in the end I think there is a need for protecting the overall American people. You argued that the intention of Congress was for the Fourteenth Amendment to protect gun ownership as one of the fundamental rights of American citizens, but I do not see how that was their direct intention.
Gun control may or may not reduce overall crime, but it does help to prevent gun-related deaths and injuries. In America, firearm mortality rates are five to six times higher than in Europe, and 95 times higher than in Asia (3). Asia is the strictest with gun control, which would explain why the mortality rates are so much lower there. The United States is the least restrictive with gun control, and the rate of firearm deaths exceeds its economic counterparts more than eightfold (3). People might argue that taking away guns would take away their rights. But one could argue the same thing about the Patriot Act, which could be considered restricting our freedom of speech. The government is doing this to protect its people. Sure, I don’t want the government restricting my rights, but I do want them to try and protect me. The Chicago gun restrictions were meant to protect people using them in domestic disputes. It was not a decision made as an attempt to stop overall crime activity (4). Applying the Second Amendment to the states would take away protections that save American lives.
(1)http://www.guncite.com/journals/kmich.html#fn162. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/04/ED2M1CATLC.DTL
(2)http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/2010/03/09/supreme-court-takes-aim-at-chicago-gun-ban.html
(3)http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/27/2/214
(4)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203746.html
In Response to Solveig:
I strongly disagree with your argument that the Second Amendment should not be incorporated. To quote the Fourteenth Amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (1).” I believe that denying American citizens the right to own a gun is a violation of this constitutional protection. To exemplify, the standing Chicago gun law prohibits gun ownership “unless such person is the holder of a valid registration for such firearm (2).” An extremely similar District of Colombia law was ruled unconstitutional just last year. Is this an infraction against the equality of United States citizens? I think so. When constitutional issues, such as the interpretation of the Second Amendment, are involved all citizens deserve to be treated equally. This is what the Fourteenth Amendment sought to ensure. Leaving the states to determine gun rights infringes on this principle. For this reason, the Supreme Court should choose to incorporate the amendment.
In your argument, you make the statement, “If the average American is allowed to have a gun, criminals will also be able to get them.” Regardless of the legality of guns for average citizens, criminals will always find access to them. This is exemplified by documented trends regarding criminals and gun possession. According to studies by a group of Northwestern University professors, only seven percent of criminals’ handguns are obtained from retail sources that are recognized by the government. Additionally, 75 percent of surveyed felons (for whom gun possession is illegal) stated that they would have “no trouble obtaining a gun when they were released” despite current gun control laws (3). The solution to gun-related deaths and violence in the United States is not banning guns for all citizens; rather, energies should be put into preventing criminals, with strong histories of violence, from obtaining guns.
I believe that making gun possession illegal for ALL citizens of the United States will not solve any problems. Just because something is illegal, people, especially those who really want it, can still obtain it. To illustrate, there are a seemingly innumerable number of drugs that are illegal in the United States, but, yet, there are countless news stories about marijuana, methamphetamine, and so on. People are finding ways around current legislation to get what they want. In regards to guns, police studies show that this is already happening in cities across the country. According to a Baltimore news source, 44 percent of Maryland gun-related crimes were committed with a weapon that was illegal in the state (5). Many of these guns were extremely dangerous, high-caliber weapons. Hence, gun trafficking exists and is a problem in the United States, and I strongly believe this movement would continue to grow if guns were outlawed.
(1): http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
(2): http://stuarttiffen.wordpress.com/
(3): http://catb.org/~esr/guns/aiming.html
(4): http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17538139/
(5): http://wjz.com/local/crime.guns.states.2.737938.html
In response to Addison's post, I would like to address the federal issue on whether or not the government should be able to limit and control gun exercises. Your point is that giving the states the ability to make laws dealing with gun restriction and ownership is that more gun related deaths will occur. I think this is non responsive and frankly irrelevant to the discussion. The issue of the second amendment being incorporated deals with whether or not the federal government has the authority by the law and the Bill of Rights to have jurisdiction over this case (1). Your argument doesn't conclude whether or not the federal government has the ability to rule on state grounds, but you just say that we would be safer if they did. I believe that liberty prevails in this instance because on an issue such as the right to bear arms that was given to states' jurisdiction previously it would be a major infringement upon rights to ban handguns everywhere for the possible exception of a few deaths. I also would like to point out that banning handguns doesn't mean they won't be used. Most of the deaths by guns in Chicago are used on the streets by people who are either struck by poverty and use guns as protection or people who use guns to accomplish means outside of the law anyways, so banning handguns would just perpetuate a cycle of structural violence within the cities and potentially give the underground markets another potential item to sell like they do with illegal drugs in the status quo. Overall, I feel that the argument of the federal government banning handguns is illogical and illegal, and therefore this should be a states' rights issue.
In response to Solveig:
I disagree with your opinion that allowing the average American to have a gun will lead to an increase in criminal violence that is conducted using firearms. It is my opinion that criminals are going to get their hands on guns no matter what the federal government has to say about the issue. Look at prohibition. Alcohol was banned but people still drank. And marijuana is illegal but people still smoke it. A study done by economist Carl Moody of William & Mary college found that after the Chicago ban on handguns was implemented, the crime rate in that city actually skyrocketed (1). I also don't agree with your statement that "Guns kill people." I am a firm believe that people kill people. Yes. people are allowed to carry concealed weapons in the state of Minnesota but as of 1998, there has only been one incident in which a concealed permit carrier shot someone (2). Clearly this isn't a huge issue. Also, there have been many cases where those carrying concealed weapons actually protected a police officer's life (2). I think that's pretty cool. And on the subject of gun deaths, firearm deaths account for only about 1.5% of all fatal deaths in the US (2). Sure the US may have the highest number of gun deaths but I think that statistic becomes somewhat obsolete in comparison to the proportion of deaths the cause in the US annually. Motor Vehicles are the number one cause of fatal accidents (2). Should we ban those too? This argument makes no sense to me. Also, you say that guns are a symbol of violence. So are knives. Should we ban those from the kitchens of America? No because it doesn't make any sense. Almost anything can be argued as being a symbol of violence. I believe that incorporating the right to own a gun is a perfectly harmless and constitutionally acceptable move. The laws that correlate with this right are designed for our protection and don't pose a threat to the safety and well-being of Americans. Handgun permits are only issued to those that meet the qualifications based on age, a clean criminal record, and completing a firearm safety course (2). And the rules and guidelines that are taught in these firearm safety courses are designed so that a person may break one or two at a time and still not be putting themselves or others in danger (4). It's my opinion that the reason we have fatal gun accidents and things of that nature is because people don't take the proper safety precautions and make mistakes. It is not the fault of the tool itself. The man who is contesting this law simply wants to be able to own a handgun to protect himself against frequent break ins into his home in his Chicago neighborhood (3). He wants to protect himself and I feel he should be granted the right to do so. Your argument that he should simply buy a better lock for his house makes no sense. If a criminal really wants to get into a person's home, is a lock really going to stop them? My thoughts are no.
1. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/01/supreme.court.gun.control/index.html?iref=allsearch
2. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
4. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/01/supreme.court.gun.control/index.html?iref=allsearch
I agree with Jackie that the Second Amendment does need to be incorporated into the Fourth Amendment but I think that with the incorporation gun use should be made illegal in the city of Chicago. Jackie does mention the legal use of long guns in homes being very dangerous, but the majority of homicides are committed with handguns; 86% of all firearm-related crimes are committed with handguns (1). I also do not agree with Jackie’s statement that citizens will not be vulnerable to criminals; the presence of a gun in a home triples the risk of the home-owners own death (2). It is too risky to allow too many people to have handguns in their households for that reason alone. That large of a risk factor only causes more chaos in a situation where a person appears vulnerable. I think investing in a good security system is safer and also a better defense. I do agree with her standards for criminal background checks before distributing guns because there needs to be a check on who is eligible for a gun. There needs to be a even more standards and regulations on who can and who cannot use a firearm.
Jackie’s last paragraph is also something I completely agree with. The courts should make regulations on where guns are stored. Children that are exposed to weapons are put in harm’s way every day because firearms are extremely deadly to an untrained user.
http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm
http://www.stophandgunviolence.com/facts.asp
Carissa,
I disagree that the second amendment should be incorporated by the fourteenth amendment. For one I don’t believe that the second amendment is a fundamental right as you claim that it is, but also I think that the states should be the ones so control which guns they do and don’t allow. The second amendment reads: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed (3). To me, this amendment focuses more on the militia part as being important. It sounds to me like the founding fathers are saying that they allow the states to have militias (and they won’t take them as a threat to the United States as a whole), and therefore the people in each state have the right to bear arms, in there militia (without it being seen as a threat).
I also don’t think that the second amendment is a fundamental right. In the Supreme Court case Palko v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court was trying to define what was and wasn’t a fundamental right. The Supreme Court ended up deciding that a fundamental right was defined as “the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty. To abolish them is not to violate a ‘principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental’” (1). More recently, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “If the notion is that these are principles that any free society would adopt, well, a lot of free societies have rejected the right to keep and bear arms” (4). In my opinion, I don’t think that society needs people to carry guns in order to continue to function. I think that it would actually be better for society if people weren’t allowed to carry guns.
Now I want to clarify, by guns I mean handguns. I think that handguns are particularly violent, as they are not used for society’s respected use of guns such as hunting. It has been found that handguns were used in 70% of firearm suicides and over 80% of firearm homicides (2). Even though people own shotguns and rifles more than handguns (2 to 1 ratio), handguns still prove to be more violent (2). 2 out of every 3 Americans killed in firearm-related homicides, suicides, and unintentional shoots, were killed by handguns (2). The fact of the matter is that handguns are easier to conceal than shotguns and rifles (2), so they end up being used more often for violent crimes.
Because of the danger of handguns, I think that it is important that the second amendment is not incorporated, so that the power to control guns remains with the states. That way each state has the ability to create individual laws that might restrict the guns used in their states or who can buy guns. If each state can create an individually tailored set of laws to their state, the hope is that citizens will be more protected. If the federal government got involved it would be harder to create gun restrictions, than it already is, and in my mind it would make the streets more dangerous if anyone and everyone was allowed to carry a gun.
[1] Palko v. Connecticut
[2]http://www.vpc.org/studies/unsafe.htm
[3]http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights
[4]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/02/supreme-court-considers-reach-second-amendment/
In response to Jackie:
I disagree that gun rights should be incorporated to the states. The Second Amendment was more relevant to a time period right after the Revolutionary War – people were literally using guns to solve problems, as they did in Shay’s Rebellion [1]. However, this was in 1786 [1]. The Second Amendment was probably relevant through about 15 years after the Civil War. It makes sense that one many need protection after a Civil War. Now? Not so much.
In relation to the background check, that may not even be legal if the Supreme Court incorporates the Second Amendment [2]. According to NPR, if the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment, many of the gun related laws may be subject to violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendment [2]. However, I do agree with your stance on the mentally unstable and criminals being allowed to own a gun: they definitely should not [3].
Also, stricter gun regulations may not even be an option if the Supreme Court incorporates the Second Amendment to the states. This, again, would be subject to being considered a violation of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments [2]. I don’t know if it would be the Courts who would have the power to decide. The Constitution directly gives legislative power to Congress – if they Courts exercise judicial review on gun-related laws, then they may be able to control more [4]. For now, however, everything is pending on this new Supreme Court decision.
1: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1092
2: http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=124210232&m=124228257
3: Jackie’s post
4: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
In response to Solveig,
I disagree with a number of arguments presented in your blog post. You mention the Constitution and its amendments being interpreted too “literally” (1), but I believe some literal and adaptive interpretation is necessary in order to understand the Constitution as it applies to today’s society. If criminals in today’s society are in possession of firearms (which they are) I think it is a right of people to be able to defend themselves. They certainly wont be able to defend themselves with a bat or a knife, because by the time they try to defend themselves they will be shot. The argument that gun control would take them out of the hands of criminals is faulty. As I stated in my post, they are criminals and will find a way to obtain firearms. Taking away the right of citizens to bear arms would only punish those who are responsible with guns and wish to protect themselves. A study estimated that guns are used by law-abiding citizens in self-defense two million times per year (3). In order to own a firearm you must be of a certain age, pass an extensive background check and take a firearms course, as part of a list of criteria (2). Pretty sure the young gang members in city ghettos have not completed any of these steps to obtain a firearm, and therefore will still be able to find a way to get guns around a possible ban.
As much as people would like to believe gun control will not miraculously put an end to crime and violence. The issues are too deeply ingrained to be solved in that way now. I don’t think our country has necessarily been labeled as the “gun” country, seeing as almost every country in the world is in possession of some sort of gun weapon. I’m also a little critical of the statistic of Japan’s gun-related death rate. Although they may have the lowest gun-related death rate, is their a death rate category similar to that of the U.S.’s but with a different weapon? Each country is different and will therefore have different methods of defending themselves. As Newton says, there are always two forces at work to make an action and a reaction. There is good in the world and there is evil, demonstrating the two sides of guns: murder and protection.
I was a little confused because at the end of your post you state the right doesn’t need to be taken away entirely, but in the beginning you adamantly propose gun rights in any way, shape or form. I agree that regulations would most likely be beneficial to cutting out those who should not be able to obtain guns, but at the same time it must be kept in mind the rights of those who wish to obtain guns for protection. In response to the part about buying a stronger lock, I don’t think that would necessarily solve the problem. There are possible entrances called windows that would enable the gangs to break in, and if they wanted something of value in McDonald’s house I assure you they would still try to find a way in. If someone forcefully enters his home with the intention of doing harm to McDonald or his property, he has the right to defend himself with a weapon that will enable him to do this. Otherwise the criminals are given control and ordinary citizens fall victim to their whims and desires.
1.
Solveig’s post
2.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#Crime%20and%20Self%20Defense
3.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
In response to Peter, I disagree with you that the second amendment should not be incorporated. I think as a part of the Constitution, it should be incorporated to the states, and is not outdated. As for Peter’s statement saying that guns are not necessary for Americans to be safe and to operate in their world (1), I agree that guns are not a necessity for all but I think that the right to own a gun should be offered to everyone. In Otis McDonald’s case, he has no real form of protection in his house, and being a 76 year old man, he is not really physically able to defend himself (2). I think that Mr. McDonald should be able to own a handgun not only because of the multiple break-ins that have happened in his house, but also because he has been around guns his whole life. The article said he “grew up on a farm in Louisiana shooting rabbits and squirrels” (2). I think from this it is clear that not only is Mr. McDonald qualified and trained enough to have a gun, but also the fact that he does own a shotgun and has not had any incidents with it.
Peter also said that licensing guns allows and almost endorses violence (1). I disagree with the statement that guns can somewhat endorse violence because many people buy guns for protection and hardly, if ever have to use it. I somewhat agree that guns allow violence, because if someone has a gun they will use it to defend themselves, but I also think that people with guns know the consequences and will only use it as a last resort. Also the statement that it is the ones who buy guns from original owners without the law’s consent and those who illegally buy and steal guns are one’s who cause the most problems. I agree with that, but I think even if guns do become illegal, all these things will still happen, I mean if you look at illegal drugs, obviously they are illegal, but yet people still get their hands on them.
On the statement that the 2nd Amendment is outdated, I again disagree. The 2nd Amendment says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (3). To me this says that the people can have guns, not just the military, and for a long time I feel that the law was interpreted this way and it should stay. The wording may be kind of confusing but it clearly says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Lastly, Peter said that if people are able to own guns, the screening should become increasingly difficult (1). I agree with this statement, I think that there should be sufficient screening and background checks on potential gun owners. I also think that felons should not be able to have guns, like I said in my original post. I think it is important to give people the right to own guns, but I also think there should be certain restrictions on them as well.
1. Peter’s Post
2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
3. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/Constitution/amendment02/
Dear Sara,
I disagree. You say “it is only logical that an issue as divisive and powerful as gun rights should be standardized across the nation.” I don’t understand what logic got you to that conclusion but, as the NPR article clearly points out, the situation is very different depending on where you live. Gun laws in Wyoming could understandably be different than gun laws in California. This is the idea behind federalism and states rights (1). Also, thank you for bringing up the point that the Chicago law specifically says you can’t have a gun unless you have a valid registration certificate. I think there may have been some confusion that this handgun ban actually banned all handguns no matter what, but it actually just bans handguns unless they are registered. Therefore, anyone can still have a gun as long as they can be registered for one, meaning they have to be at least 18 years old and a non criminal [2]. Your national standard argument doesn’t really make sense with decisions the court has made in the past. In my court case Miller V. California, the court decided that local standards are best for judging obscenity, we also have local laws for a plethora of different things from traffic violations to robberies, I don’t see why the situation would be any different for guns, where different circumstances lead to different policies (3). Your own article that you cite also brings up the good point that in Chicagos Amicus Curiae they defend the right to have a gun by saying “In urban environments, where handgun abuse is so rampant, the protection of a right to handguns
simply because they are in common use undermines, rather than guarantees, ordered liberty. It is, instead, the very governmental power to protect residents that is critical to the concept of ordered liberty, since enforcing handgun control laws can make an enormous difference in curbing firearms violence.” I think that an all or nothing clutch to the idea of “liberties ignores the realities that people live in, but you might not experience [3]. Also, you say that you don’t believe that assault weapons should be legalized… well why not? All the other arguments that you make support the conclusion that people should be allowed to kill other people to defend themselves, constitionally of course, and what are handguns but just wimpier versions of assault weapons?
I think you are also turning a blind eye to the greater impact of what handguns do. Because the United States has such liberal hand gun laws, that means that they get sold in other places. Thousands of people die every year in Mexico because of guns that are bought in the United States. These drug wars obviously have a greater cause than just handguns, but it is the handguns that are actually doing the killing. In fact 90% of handguns are actually made in the U.S. that are used in Mexcio’s drug wars
Now I want to respond to Ben’s response to me. I think this was one of the best response posts ever. You actually influenced a lot how I feel about this topic. I like what you said about an all out, cure all ban not working because there are other causes to gun violence. I think you are right that there are better ways to stop gun violence, people just need to be more creative in the policies that they make to find a solution to this problem. The PSN thing you found seems pretty cool. [5]
Also, Lupe Fiasco doesn’t like guns [6]
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
2. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5354594-504383.html
3. “So everyone can know it when they see it” ~ Jacob Sandry
4. http://www.ips-dc.org/articles/too_many_guns
5. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/gun-violence/prevention/project-safe-neighborhoods.htm
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ra9DVewxdo
In response to Sara O:
I disagree with Sara that the 2nd amendment should be incorporated into the states. I think that it should be purely up to the states whether citizens are allowed to have guns in their homes, and it should be up to the states what regulations they put on them. The second amendment states: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” [1]. To me, this means that people have a right to have a gun in times of war to raise an army. At the time, the amendment made sense for that purpose. However, today since the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller restrictions on guns have slowly been diminishing [2]. Although the 14th amendment may be able to incorporate other amendments to the states within the bill of rights, I think that lifting bans that states and cities have in place should not be able to be incorporated. The due process clause of the 14th amendment “would seem to protect only procedures and not substance.” [1]. This would mean that the 14th amendment wouldn’t be able to incorporate the 2nd amendment to the states using that logic.
At the same time the Supreme Court justices cannot ignore the fact that the 2nd amendment is different from its other accompanying amendments. This is the only amendment that has a “lethal product” that could potentially have serious ramifications when it comes to the health and safety of many peoples well being [1]. Many of these controls are less restrictive then the one in Chicago, like the one in Massachusetts that merely limits gun owners to lock their weapons up within their homes [2]. These are reasonable restrictions. The Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld this law, which could be overturned potentially depending on the ruling in the Chicago case. Either way, I think that more guns ultimately leads to more violence. Although some studies you cited have shown that there are not solid links between guns and violence, I would tend to think that if people think that they need guns for protection they’d probably use them if needed. Having small restrictions about where you bring your gun, or what kinds you can have are really just tiny barriers—you still have the gun. I think that if the Supreme Court incorporates the 2nd amendment, states will loose even more of their valued control, and crime rates in already at risk areas will spike.
[1]. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/03/us/03scotus.html?scp=2&sq=chicago%20guns&st=cse
[2]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/05/AR2010030502873.html
[3]. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-us-massachusetts-gun-locks,0,2189571.story
I'd like to respond to Alyssa Brown's post. Alyssa, I thought that your post was equally well-written and thought out. You brought up several good points about the controversy of gun ownership rights, which translate into real life. Consider, for example, the recent squabble over two Starbucks in California banning guns on their premises (1). While I believe that this is a legitimate move on Starbucks' part, I do have to ask: do you expect a gun-toting robber is going to care whether or not Starbucks bans guns on its premises? Is someone with violent intentions going to adhere to that kind of rule? Answer: no. I don't have a problem with gun regulation. In fact, I believe that there are certain laws that I support. For example, a recent piece of legislation in Iowa would prohibit people with domestic abuse records from owning a gun (2). I think this is a good idea. It doesn't mean, however, that I don't support the incorporation of the second ammendment. Much the same as the "clear and present danger" doctrine, which places limitations on free speech, I believe that certain limitations apply to gun ownership. I'd also like to say that there is precedent for wide gun owernership in District of Columbia v. Heller, which upheld that people have the right to own a gun within a federal "enclave" (3). Gun rights advocates say that there would be a natural extension into states (3). As far as your argument about contraceptives goes, I agree that the idea behind the argument is shaky. However, guns are a form of protection, and should be recognized as such. While, yes, guns certainly contribute to violence, I don't believe that incorporating gun rights will affect the current rate. The court may rule, though, that certain kinds of gun ownership are illegal--in ways much larger than I would agree with. If this is the case, I believe it is gun use for protection, which, we must agree is legitimate, that will be harmed. I'd like to conclude by saying that there are tons of gun righters out there. I think that here at Jefferson we're pretty liberal, so we're not exposed to many people who own and operate guns safely. A recent protest in Chicago surrounding this case numbered in the thousands at the very least (4). Most, if not all, of whom are probably very safe gun owners. Anyway, good job on your post, Alyssa.
1.http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/04/news/companies/Starbucks_gun_policy/
2.http://www.oskaloosaherald.com/local/local_story_074180540.html
3. http://www.examiner.com/x-10317-San-Diego-County-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2010m3d12-What-part-of-the-Second-Amendment-dont-you-understand
4. http://www.galesburg.com/news/x1664755416/Local-group-lobbies-for-gun-rights
I strongly disagree with Laura’s views on incorporating the Second Amendment into the states. I think that by first looking at simple facts it’s easy to see that guns need to be more regulated and kept away from citizens. The states should have the right to restrict gun usage as they choose to protect their citizens. An average of 75,000 people are killed or injured by guns each year, and 8 children die from gun violence every day (1). In 2006, firearms were used in 52% of suicides and 68% of homicides (1). Clearly, these few statistics show that this is a question of safety for Americans, which has always been established as a higher priority than rights.
Laura asks “what’s the difference between say the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms?” They are the same, and both must be protected by the government to prevent danger to citizens. As Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said of free speech in Schenck v. United States, “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” Clearly, the issue of American’s safety can and should take precedence over rights.
As Dennis Henigan from the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence argues, the right to bear arms is “the most dangerous right” and risks should lead the Court to defer to the state when examining restrictions on guns (2). Evidence has shown that the right to possess guns increases the risk of harm to the individuals exercising the right, their families, and the community at large (2).
I believe this is a fundamental issue of the safety of our country. Violence should not be allowed, and we have the police and other intelligence agencies to protect us from criminals and others. Statistics have shown that owning guns only increases the levels of violence and death in cities around the country. I, personally, am uneasy when I think of ordinary Americans carrying around handguns in public or even having them in their homes. Accidents do happen, and the Supreme Court should respect the state’s rights to limit gun use and put regulations into place. It is an issue of safety, one that the courts have ruled in the past takes precedence over constitutional rights. In the issue of free speech we are not allowed to kill or use violence; the same should be true of the Second Amendment. It should NOT be incorporated, in order to protect the rights and safety of other Americans.
(1)http://www.momsagainstguns.org/voices/champions.php
(2)http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/
In Response to Kayla:
While your points in your argument for the incorporation of the Second Amendment were justifiable and understandable, I overall disagree with the fact that the Second Amendment needs to be incorporated because otherwise it would deny someone their rights. To your first point that McDonald should have a gun at his home to stop burglars, I completely disagree. While murder and burglary are both felony charges and extreme issues, I do not think it is right to say that they are on the same level (1). McDonald has not been harmed in any of the break ins to his house, and furthermore while it is sad that he is having his belongings taken, is an equal response killing one of the burglars? (2) I think not. These are teenagers that are breaking in to his home and while the public sees McDonald as a victim at this point in time, if he ended up killing any of those children, he would be looked upon as a horrible person who would probably end up going to jail especially if the burglars were not armed. It is just like in Kindergarten when someone steals a person’s crayon. If the child who had the crayon stolen from him pinches (his only weapon) the child who stole his crayon he is scolded by the teacher and probably gets in trouble. If that same child had gone to the teacher (the police) to solve the issue, there would have been a lot less of an ordeal.
You also say that it is not fair that some cities are allowed to use guns while others are not and this disagreement can be justified by the Tenth Amendment. While the Second Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, it was decided in the Court case United States v Lopez that the act of gun control was out of Congress’ hands and furthermore out of federal jurisdiction (4). The Tenth Amendment says that every power that is not directly given to the federal government is reserved to the states (3). Since the power of gun control was not given to the federal government, each state should be allowed to make its own decisions on guns and the federal government should not be involved in this issue.
In your argument you acknowledge that there are many particular questions that will need to be addressed when incorporating this amendment such as will felons be allowed to own guns. I believe with so many little exceptions and restrictions, there is really no point in incorporating the Second Amendment at all. There is going to be a lot of confusion and either way you spin it there will not only be the people against incorporating it in the first place unhappy but there will also be all of the people that thought they would be receiving the right that is denied it. The incorporation of the Second Amendment will cause a lot of arguments that are unneeded when the United States has many other issues that it should be worried about. The United States should not put this issue which is more likely to cause death before issues that pushing for life and the general wellbeing of Americans.
I see where you are coming from when you explain your stance on this topic; however, I do not believe that the Second Amendment should be incorporated for the various reasons listed above. As well the United States is a nation that should be making people’s lives better and more fulfilling but if the number of registered guns increase and killing rates go up, the United States is not doing its job in providing a safe place for its citizens. When someone is shot or killed, that act does not just affect one person it affects hundreds or thousands of people that were family of that person, went to school with them, worked a job with them or were friends with them. I would not want to see that many lives change in a negative manner for one person to have the right to fire a gun whenever they feel it is necessary.
1. http://felonyguide.com/List-of-felony-crimes.php
2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124210232
3. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
4. Our government book
Solveig, I was a little disappointed with some of the logic in your post. Your argument seems to hinge on the fact that incorporation of the Second Amendment would mean that criminals could obtain guns. You said, “If the average American is allowed to have a gun, criminals will also be able to get them.” Just so you know, the average American IS allowed to have a gun. And you completely overlooked the black market firearms trade. If guns (or certain kinds of guns, etc) are banned, what’s stopping the criminal who gets his guns illegally anyway? One can get a handgun very, very cheaply due to their prevalence.
You also say that “the argument that guns can be used to protect oneself is essentially useless,” but you don’t really back it up. It seems to make perfect sense to me. If other people have guns and would shoot me, why would I want a gun as well? It’s similar to North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons to increase its international bargaining power.
In regard to the conceal-and-carry aspect of gun ownership, I’d rather have the person conceal the gun then just slap it down on the table at Starbuck’s next to their cappuccino (that is, if they’re going to carry a gun in public, which is a pretty basic right).
I also can’t agree with your decision to treat one amendment differently than all the others. If we don’t like the Second Amendment, let’s address it and amend it constitutionally, but otherwise it should be treated the same as the others.
To conclude, I agree that the prevalence of guns in a society is bad. But simply saying, “You can’t have one” isn’t going to deter people who would use them for illegal activity. If somebody’s planning to commit a murder, do you think they’d care about a little weapons charge?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home