How would you feel if you were sitting next to someone with a gun in a restaurant? How about on a college campus? Well in Arizona, among other states, you just might have to sit next to that person. I’m hoping to go to college next fall, and the thought is a little unnerving to say the leas
t.
Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont, among over a dozen other states, allow adults 21 and over to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Granted there are some exceptions, but usually just the minimum to avoid Armageddon. As one example, you can bring a gun into a bar as long as you do not drink… because of course people who go to bars never have any intention of drinking…
True, there are some gun restrictions in place, like no one under 18 can legally own a gun, although for most places those restrictions are minimal.
It is easier to buy a gun in America than it is to get a drivers license. In order to get a license you need to pass a written test and show competence behind the wheel of an actual car. To buy a gun, you might need to take a basic education class depending on where you live, but otherwise you just need to pass a background check, and it is really easy to bypass this class and test altogether. Just go to a gun show.
There are gun shows around the country all of the time. Many of these shows are not required to perform background checks on gun buyers because they feature private sellers, and if someone is not required to do something before a sale, why would he if it lowers his chance of making a profit? Thirty-three states do not restrict gun show sales in any way. An investigation by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York found that “19 out of 30 private sellers at various gun shows in multiple states failed an integrity test by selling a gun to someone who admitted to being unable to pass a background test.” That is at least 19 more guns in circulation than I would like.
In the US you have to pass tests for all kinds of things. If I want to start a job, I have to pass a background test that shows that I have not lied on my application or caused problems at previous jobs. If my mom wants to take out a loan, she has to pass a credit check. These are just jobs and money at stake. What about lives? What about guns? Background checks exist for a reason — to keep the public safe, and even people who support gun rights should be appalled by the results of Bloomberg’s investigation. Basically if you want to buy a gun, you can buy it, even though you are not fit to own one.
We see people who are not qualified to own guns getting them all of the time. Look at Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter; he was mentally ill and managed to get a gun. Look at Jared Loughner, the gunman who shot Congresswoman Giffords. He was also unfit to own a gun, yet he got one and look what he did with it. Then there is Columbine; the list goes on and on…
I do not believe that our founding fathers were infallible or knew everything. We can see this by their stance on slavery when America was created. They were not perfect and could not anticipate everything that would happen in the future, which is why they made the Constitution a living, changeable document. It was designed to change with the times and it has; just look at the 18th and 21st amendments (which made alcohol illegal and then made it legal again). At the time when the second amendment was written, the only guns that existed were muskets, or maybe something just a little more fancy. This amendment was written for the people of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century and like the rest of the Constitution, it was expected to change with time. None of the founders could have anticipated semiautomatic weapons that can fire 50 bullets in 10 seconds like we have today. However, although these unforeseen guns exist, the founders 
made it possible for us to change our laws accordingly. They were smart men and only fought as an absolute last resort; just look at the Olive Branch Petition which almost prevented the violence of the American Revolution from happening. Ergo, it would be reasonable to assume that the founding fathers did not like anything associated with violence unless it was a last resort. They protected the guns of the 1790’s because America was fighting wars and expanding; Americans needed to protect themselves when the country was still young. We are not a young country anymore. So if those guns were protected under the second amendment, what does that make our guns? – Killing machines that the founders would oppose. If we want to follow our founding fathers’ intent, then there should definitely be a limit on all firearms other than single shot rifles. (It can logically be argued that rifles are a reasonable progression from muskets whereas Uzis are not.)
Finally, buying guns creates a cycle in which more guns will be bought in the future. There are people who need semi-automatic guns in their profession such as the military or police. There are other people who honor the tradition of marksmanship and respect rifles like hunters and sportsmen. But other than these groups, people buy guns to protect themselves from other people who buy guns. They buy guns because they are scared of their neighbors who own gun, causing even more people to buy guns, and so the fear perpetuates. This is a vicious cycle that has resulted in America having 90 guns for every 100 people. Yemen is one of few countries, if not the only country that has a one to one gun ratio according to a 60 Minutes report. We can see how well that country is doing right now and it is scary and sad to think that America is not that far behind. Our Constitution from 1787 was designed for change and expected to change over time; that is how our founding fathers made it. It is time for change.
__________________________________________________________________________
Additional Sources:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/11/background_check_control.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/us/04guns.html
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
opinions powered by SendLove.to
“Americans needed to protect themselves when the country was still young. We are not a young country anymore”.
If eight years under authoritarian rule by the Bush administration should have taught the far-left anything, it’s to be careful about not being too comfortable in the majority. Naomi Wolf has written about the dangers that an unguarded and overly gun-idealistic Left. Wolf writes of the dangers in creating a practically toothless left which, if push ever comes to shove, wouldn’t be able to defend itself. What you mean to make the left is a little idealistic and maternal Bambi, tekking out in the snow, slopping up legislative victories. That’s nice and all, until a gung-ho Sarah Palin decides to shoot you down, skin you, and wear your hide in Sarah Palin’s Alaska. Maybe then, you might wonder, where our gun rights were. While it might be heart-wearming to imagine our political establishment as a permanently mature zeitgeist incapable of brutish feelings, history informs us otherwise. Can you think of any modern day analogies, say, from the last decade or so, to the Reichstag fire? There’s a pretty big one, trust me.
Fascism has a way of creeping up on people. And if it ever does, then we might need to use that uzi to stop it from doing any damage.That might sound alarmist, but the second amendment is a long term protection that the people have against fascism.
Here’s a nice little blurb from Naomi Wolf:
“the Founders set up our system to prohibit the rise of unaccountable armies on our soil. That is why the Founders gave the states the rights to establish Militias accountable only to the people… But [the Framers'] debates, and the Second Amendment to the Constitution that they eventually ratified, make it clear that the Founders were desperate to protect the new nation from just what has happened [the rise of Blackwater] while we were distracted, while we were shopping online, while we were in a Ambien-heavy sleep on the couch”.
So please, wake up from your fluffy little affluently-liberal dream before you render the Left toothless and dismantle one of America’s only checks on fascism.
It is faulty to assume that people need guns to keep government in check. Look at Egypt, Tunisia, or any of the other countries experiencing revolution right now. The people are getting their freedom and overthrowing authoritarian rule WITHOUT using guns.
I completely agree with the premise of this article. It has become too easy to buy a gun in America, although less people than ever actually need one.
As for the “fluffy little affluently-liberal dream” that the previous reader wrote in his comment, his remark only proves your last point about gun owners being scared, causing them to buy more guns. In your words Mr. Soluk “and so the fear perpetuates” among gun owners. Bravo!
uhhh yeah, of course fear perpetuates buying more guns. That’s the point. So that more and more people buy guns. Then they can protect from an unbridled government or unwieldy Blackwater. And Egypt and Tunisia are pretty awful examples. Neither of those countries had their armies or private armies fight directly against the protesters. While counter protestors (government agents) fought against them for a good day or two, it wasn’t a substantial challenge really. And those riot police were really doomed from the start considering they were outnumbered. That’s not the point though. Take a look at Libya. A violent government is using an army made up entirely of foreigners to kill protestors in the street. Without substantial weapons, the protestors have no means to fight their civil war. Something tells me that if the United States ever had to defend itself as a fascist state from protestors, it would not go down so easily considering it has resources unmatched by any of those Middle Easter countries: the largest and most powerful standing army in the world and the private security complex of Blackwater (which would be less likely to have as many reservations about shooting American citizens, kind of like libya’s army right now). Reading this must sound like alarmist jabber, but that’s the point. Someday we may need to keep a fascist or authoritarian state in check. If that unpleasant state arrives (believe me, it could happen here), then we’re going to need to have some way to defend ourselves.
extended comment:
That whole fear perpetuation argument just turns in on itself here. If we ever had to take on a fascist United States government, it would take a lot of guns and a lot of people. So if people get more and more guns to defend themselves from each other in the meantime, then it would only help us to make effective revolution. It might be an ugly motive, but it’s for the greatest cause in the long run.
“We can see how well that country is doing right now and it is scary and sad to think that America is not that far behind.”
Really?
The US is not that far behind Yemen? Last time I checked, Yemen was an authoritarian regime, poorly attempting to pose as a presidential democracy, whose people were demonstrating to remove a president who’s been in office for the past 30 years. Last time I checked, our GDP was $14 trillion – theirs was $26 billion. To put that into perspective, their economy is 1.8% the size of ours. Last time I checked, the USA was ranked 9th freest country to do business in (down four notches since President Obama took office, I might add), whereas Yemen was ranked 127. Whereas the US is one of the freest nations in the world, Yemen is listed as “not free” by Freedom House, “mostly unfree” for economic freedom, “very serious situation” for its press freedom, and “authoritarian” on the Democracy Index of 2010.
I understand that you are comparing the proportions of guns to people in both nations, but your statement is written to sound as though the fabric of American society is on the verge of unraveling; that the United States will spiral into shambles and become the blithering mess that Yemen is unless we abolish the 2nd amendment. THAT is an alarmist rant. This is the type of argument that is appropriate for a partisan or extremist campaign rally. If your purpose is to logically persuade someone who does not already agree with you, then you have failed.
@.: Really? America will become a fascist state if we outlaw guns? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Benito Mussolini did not rise to power as a result of firearm abolishment. What about the European states? Firearms are outlawed, but I don’t see them on the verge of tipping to Fascism. Same goes for Japan, Hong Kong, and others.
@Bill: Thank you for the clear statement.
@.: “Alarmist jabber” is how Hitler rose to power.
@Soluk: You can’t say that it is easier to buy guns than get driver licenses. It is easier to buy a gun in Arizona than get a driver’s license in California. It is also easier to get a driver’s license in Arizona than it is to get a gun in California. Such a statement can be made within state, but not between states. My question for you: how do you propose to take care of the black market of firearm sales? Abolishing the 2nd amendment or making gun-purchase requirements more stringent won’t eliminate that market. You know how the argument goes from here.
Times have changed, and so have gun laws. When it was most difficult to purchase and carry guns,the murder rate was over 10 per 100,000, now that the gun laws have changed to make it easier to buy and carry, murders are down to 5 per 100,000.
As for your response to Really?;
“The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. … They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.”
- Benito Mussolini, address to the Italian Senate, 1931
Outlawing firearms doesn’t bring about fascism. Claiming that would be as retarded as Andrew’s claim about Yemen. Outlawing guns just makes it harder to kill the fascists. I just want to have the guns ready for if that happens. America isn’t as stable as we all like to think. One wrong candidate in the 1930′s time could’ve sent American history in an entirely different direction.Without the election of FDR, the nations could have descended into an era of hatred, racism, and proto-nationalism that would pop open both your and Andrew’s liberal bubbles.
But I really liked the Hitler argument though. It was very thought out and original. Implying the other person purports nazism. Bravo. Go look up Godwin’s law before you post on the internet ever again.
And let me get this straight: arguments that go against conformist thought led to Nazism? Do you now anything about Nazi Germany?
In the 1930s’ Eastern European society anti semitic though was hardly considered alarmist thought. It was actually a pretty mainstream mind set. My argument is one that goes against the grain. Do you know why the Holocaust was so hellish? Conformity and complicity. People not speaking up. People sitting by as Jewish citizens were dragged off to concentration camps and gassed to death. So somehow, my non-conformist non-complicit comment – grounded in dissent – perpetuates Nazism? If anything, if you do want to play your little Nazi style cowboys and indians low level thinking game, your unoriginal comment, which obviously took the most minimal levels of thought, perpetuates the mindless, ignorant, and reactionary kind of citizenry that allowed the Nazis to rise. But you should learn that Nazis arguments are best kept to third grade level political discussion. Grow up.
Has Andrew Soluk had proper 1st Amendment background check and training to print stuff like this? We just can’t let anyone go around printing stuff like this without the proper checks and laws in place.
our founding fathers didnt want slavery but they thought it was too much to ask, they were already asking people to rebel agaist the worlds power house. maybe a little history lesson before you start blogging would be beneficial to you. people like you ruin this country. your ignorant and dont see the facts that in states with concealed carry, crime rates are down, and in washington D.C. where there is a ban on handguns, crime is among the highest in the U.S.
12 REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD OWN A GUN
1. Because You Own a Fire Extinguisher. Bad things happen. You can still call 911, but when seconds count, you need to act quickly to save your life and the life of those you love.
2. Because Shooting Is An Olympic Sport. Shooting is an Olympic sport and the United States holds more gold medals than any other nation.
3. Because Most Americans Own Guns. You’ll be in good company as a gun owner; nearly fifty percent of households in the U.S. own a firearm.
4. Because You Respect The U.S. Constitution. Sometimes you won’t like it when people exercise fundamental freedoms protected by the Constitution, such as freedom of speech. But that simply doesn’t matter: The Supreme Court ruled that every person has a constitutional right to own guns. So respecting the Constitution means respecting the right of others to exercise those constitutional rights.
5. Because You Are More Likely to Die By Falling. There were 613 fatal firearms accidents in 2007, one-half of one percent of all fatal accidents. You’re more likely to die by driving, poisoning, drowning or falling than by a gun accident.
6. Because Guns Stop Burglars. Last year, the CDC estimated that Americans used guns about 498,000 times to frighten away intruders attempting to break into homes.
7. Because Gun Bans Increase Murder Rates. After D.C. banned handguns in 1984, the average murder rate jumped 73 percent while the U.S. murder rate fell 11 percent.
8. Because Guns Don’t Cause Murder. A New York Times study of 1,662 murders in the city found that 90 percent of the killers had criminal records. Murderers are not ordinary, law abiding adults. Instead, virtually all murderers are extremely aberrant individuals with life histories of violence, psychopatholoy, and substance abuse.
9. Because Gun Owners Win Political Battles. Gun rights groups have donated $22 million in political campaigns over the last decade, while gun control groups gave $1.8 million.
10. Because Ignorance is Dangerous. At current homicide rates, 1 in 240 Americans will be murdered this year. You need to know how to operate a tool that will immediately stop a threat and save your life and the life of those in your household.
11. Because Guns Don’t Make Countries More Dangerous. Switzerland has one of the world’s highest gun ownership rates and also one of the lowest homicide rates. In contrast, the countries with the world’s worst homicide rates–South Africa, Columbia, Brazil, Mexico, Filipines, Taiwain–also prohibit law-abiding citizens from owning guns. Compare the 20 per 100,000 homicide rate in Russia, which bans guns, with the 2 per 100,000 rate in neighboring Poland. Compare gun-free Luxembourg’s 9 per 100,000 murder rate with Germany and France with rates of 0.93 and 1.65.
12. Because Gun Control Laws Don’t Increase Safety. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences failed to identify even one gun control measure that had a statistically significant reduction in violent crime, suicide, or gun accidents. The Center for Disease Control reached the same conclusion in 2003.