Columbia Student Nick Liu, UW, Assignment 4 Final Draft
USA – -(Ammoland.com)- In light of the recent election, where anything and everything was said for personal gain, what actually should be followed through on?
Specifically, in regard to the Second Amendment, the NRA threw its weight behind Donald Trump, and appealing to conservative Republicans, Trump adopted the pro-Second Amendment, anti-gun control language.
This raises important questions: Should there be changes to the Second Amendment? Should gun laws be stricter, even from the point of view of the staunchest Second Amendment supporters?
There are those who vehemently oppose any sort of gun control, such as NRA leaders and right wing, anti-government militia groups.
They believe any sort of measure to be constitutional overstep, and have every right to believe so, as the Second Amendment protects these gun-bearing and militia-forming organizations.
Nevertheless, politicians have turned the issue into a staple partisan battle, and it shouldn’t be – it is an issue of national safety, with lives at stake: so many accidental shootings and mass killings could’ve been prevented with proper lock and key storage, and studies show that chances of school shootings are significantly lowered with mandatory background checks. There are those on the right that believe the progressive agenda is an absolute, blanket ban on all firearms, and yet, most progressives merely want extensive background checks and storage regulations.
Similarly, to the casual, moderate gun owner like many in my family – those who enjoy shooting recreationally but are only so much invested in either side of the gun rights battle – it is clear that certain changes, like background checks, regulations on firearm storage, and regulations on high capacity magazines and automatic weapons are needed.
Now, from the other side of the spectrum, we can look at the militia groups that fervently cling to radical interpretations of the Second Amendment. For example, one recent incident saw armed men take over a wildlife sanctuary in Oregon in protest of what they thought was constitutional wrongdoing of the federal government. In a scene straight of a small time, independent film that wants to be a blockbuster, Ammon Bundy, a grizzled rancher figure, stands atop a pulpit and delivers a rousing oration to a weathered, rural crowd of working people.
He rants about the government’s injustice and the mistreatment of ranchers and rightfully public lands. He then announces his plan to occupy a wildlife refuge, and in a snowy and icy blaze, dozens of armed men’s get into their trucks and ride off.
The men arrive armed with rifles and AK-47s, and Bundy gruffly smiles and declares this home.
These men believe any encroachments unnecessary and foreshadows of bigger bans – and these men are wrong. They should be the ones supporting these changes, as they affect them in no way. Even the most right wing gun supporters, such as these militia groups, would’ve been able to complete their objectives. The Malheur Refuge occupation would still have occurred, as these men most likely have proper lock and key to store their weapons, would’ve passed the background check, and none were carrying high capacity drum magazines. Under the same logic, other militia groups such as the Oath Keepers and 3 Percenters would still be able to operate. Ultimately, these militia groups should be taking the stance of casual gun owners, as not only would they be able to continue their activities, they would also be improving the safety of many. If they were to support even the simplest firearm storage and ownership regulations, the nation would finally be able to move towards partisan cooperation on the Second Amendment that could benefit all.
Thus, in light of all the shootings and violence, the Second Amendment still needs amending, and these amendments need the support of the right wing.
These Second Amendment people oppose any sort of regulation, but they should actually be supporting what the recreational shooter and progressive want – nothing more than proper storage regulations and background checks. If these parties would just listen to each other and reason, they could continue their agendas and help keep Americans safe. The right to own a gun, which brings with it so much responsibility and power – fundamentally, the power to take away life – is a duty that the American people are able and entrusted by the Constitution to handle. Nevertheless, with such a responsibility naturally comes drawbacks, and when those drawbacks come to haunt thousands of lives and people, measures must be taken, and the left and right must come together to help prevent further mindless violence.
OK, let’s parse this: “There are those who vehemently oppose any sort of gun control, such as NRA leaders and right wing, anti-government militia groups. They believe any sort of measure to be constitutional overstep, ” Gun control ultimately comes down to saying “you can’t have guns” to some larger or smaller group of people. Everyone agrees that convicted felons and people adjudicated mentally ill should be denied guns. Now, how much further are you going to extend that? To people under domestic restraining orders? To people taking medication for depression? To anyone who meets a certain profile? To anyone… Read more »
I didn’t particularly care for this article. The author mentions Oregon, but completely fails to mention that those involved were acquitted. The author is clearly bias. I would wager he has never read the U. S. Constitution.
I found the article to basically be a bunch of gobbledygook.
In closing, I would suggest this student expand his knowledge and read “More Guns, Less Crime” and “The War on Guns.”
Poster’s warning: “More Guns, Less Crime” is a heavily data driven book with statistical analysis and not for the novelist type.
@Larry Brickey – You hold that most anti-gun folks do not actually want to ban all private gun ownership. That is probably true, but probably also irrelevant. Most Germans weren’t actually NAZIs either, nor did they want to exterminate Jews. They just didn’t do anything to stop it until it was too late. Once a restriction is placed into law, it becomes very difficult to remove, even for “Sunset Legislation.” Even if most people who support something like UBCs don’t intend to prevent all, or most, private citizens from having guns, that law will still give the police agencies the… Read more »
To author Nick Liu, Your assignment, regarding this draft of your paper is to read the following book: -Death by “gun control” : the human cost of victim disarmament -Authors: Aaron S Zelman; Richard W Stevens -Publisher: Hartford, WI : Mazel Freedom Press, 2001. If you will allow, these authors will lay out how “sensible” restrictions on citizen armament, going back as far as written history allows, time and again does quite the opposite of what you are suggesting in your thesis. Historically you will find the authors referencing restrictions of knives, swords, spears or any edged or otherwise non… Read more »
The left pushes UBCs, magazine size limits, and safe storage laws, not because they really think those restrictions would impact “gun violence,” gun accidents, or crimes, but because they believe those restrictions to be relatively innocuous. They believe, probably correctly, that most people, including many gun owners, will not believe such laws would have any impact on them personally. It seems to them that those laws might be “passable” because they don’t have an obvious downside, and can be sold as something that might help and can’t hurt (at least, not anyone but a rabid gun nut). We need to… Read more »
The author of this BS has a right to his opinion. We have a right to ours. I will in the future make note of this author’s name and skip over his fiction story. I have to much to do in my life without wasting it here.
The only thing I agree with is there should be some non invasive back ground check to see if they are a danger.
How to do this is beyond my ability to create.
So you only want to hear what you already know and believe? What happened to the first amendment, the one you are always saying the second is there to protect? If the only thing that is allowed to be posted on this site is stuff you already know and agree with what is the point of having the blog in the first place. You can’t learn anything new so why waste your time reading what you already know?
Another gleaming jewel of colossal ignorance! The inability of Millennials to think critically is further evidence of the necessity to eliminate the Department of Education. Cultural Marxism and Columbia University have had a symbiotic relationship since the 1930’s.
Once again, the additional restrictions and regulations WILL NOT DETER the heinous acts of the delusional and the criminal. They only further restrict the already law abiding with no deleterious impact on criminals or terrorists. This is what leads to the staunch resistance to what you and other misdirected souls call ‘common sense’ gun control laws. Because the additional regulations you espouse will not fix what you seek to cure, you will have written the new regulations toward the next natural step in the evolution of gun control – confiscation. To enable the coverage of all gun ownership transfers by… Read more »
Ignoring the rhetoric regarding militias and groups like Oathkeepers, there are major factual issues with the general thesis. – Automatic weapons are already heavily restricted under federal law, and are not the same as the semi-automatic but cosmetically identical versions that can be purchased by the civilian population at large. – “Universal” background checks are a farce. Per DoJ studies, most criminals steal their firearms, buy them illegally on the street, or obtain them from a friend/family member who is aware of their criminal record. Additionally, so-called “mass shooters” generally have no criminal history and generally purchase their firearms from… Read more »