If we had gun control as a nation, we would be taking away individuals rights as well as their ability to protect themselves. Also, if there was gun control, there would still be criminals purchasing weapons through the black market or illegally; it's inevitable. Therefore, it would be immoral to deny innocent citizens their right to protect themselves by bearing arms. The Second Ammendment was created for a reason and there is nothing less than a moral reason for its existence. The right to bear arms is for the protection and safety of citizens.
I’m not sure I completely understand what you’re saying here—in your first paragraph you advocate placing limitation on who can have guns, and in the second you say that gun control is immoral. I’m going to proceed under the assumption that you mean a gun-ban or prohibition is immoral, but please correct me if I’m wrong.
On your first point, I agree wholeheartedly; we cannot pick and chose what parts of the Constitution we follow, no matter how dismayed organizations like the HCI may end up. The Second Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to bear arms” (U.S. Const. amend. II), as well as a militia—the two are not the same thing. Obviously there is a need to decipher who exactly the framers intended when they said “people”, but it would be rational to assume that they mean what we today would consider law-abiding citizens of the United States.
I also agree that background checks are logical—I certainly don’t think someone mentally unstable should be able to handle a weapon of any sort (be it a sword, crossbow, or gun). However, I disagree with yours and the prevailing view on a life-ban for felons. I’m an advocate for rehabilitation, and if I’m releasing someone from prison under the assumption they they’ve been rehabilitated, I don’t believe they should be treated as a sub-par human for the rest of their life. If a felon has gone through a mandatory block of time after prison with no further incidents with the law, they have just as much of a right to protecting themselves, hunting, and skeet shooting as I do. Expecting someone to act like a responsible citizen without treating them as such, or giving them the opportunity or hope of eventually becoming such again is preposterous.
U.S. Const. amend. II.
The problem with these pro-control organizations publicly stating that they want to enact a complete prohibition on guns, is that many Americans, like myself, are not completely on one side of the argument or the other. Think of it like a citizen’s political affiliation. Sure, there are many (and very vocal) right-wing individuals and left-wing individuals. However, I would believe most of the population falls closer in the middle of the political spectrum, labeled as a moderate. If these gun-control organizations are out there crying out for the complete prohibition of guns in this country, many “middle-ground” individuals are going to be put off by it, as they feel it’s too extreme of a change.
These organizations are better off inching their way closer and closer to their ultimate goal. This is where these “commonsense” control measures come into play. Measures such as background checks, restrictions on recent felons, and restrictions on types of guns allowed are all great examples of “commonsense” controls. To most of the population, many of those controls seem completely reasonable. Now that these pro-control organizations have a connection with the common citizen, it opens up opportunities to push through more legislation, getting just a little more radical each time. While not morally right, it’s an effective technique that’s been in politics since the beginning.
So do I agree that these groups have a moral obligation? Absolutely, but it’s not smart on their end. All effective organizations, regardless of topic, have an ultimate goal. The reach this ultimate goal, you have achieve small victories first.
Sign up for free and study better.
Get started today!