The Gun Control Paradigm

I am going to start with a foundation for my views on Constitutional Law, then I will propose what I think best targets the issues I have seen mentioned; without violating my core stance. After this I would like a calm well thought out discussion on any places that you find to be fundamentally in error either by fact, or by violation of your core principles.

My core principles regarding the Constitutionality of Laws is dependent upon their ability to protect a right of a citizen; without taking away or reducing the rights of another citizen. Those rights include and begin with the so called “natural rights” defined by Thomas Jefferson in the “Declaration of Independence”, as this document was and is the foundation of ideas that the United States of America and it’s Constitution were based; and moving forward into the Bill of Rights and the clarifications that were made before the Constitution was capable of being ratified at Constitutional Convention by the required number of existing States. That being said; If a Law cannot defend or protect a citizens rights as defined in the previously stated documents, that form the basis of our country and society, without infringing or abridging the rights of another citizen, they are ultimately extraneous, and do more damage than they provide benefit.

Whether you are pro-gun, anti-gun, or neutral on the issue is your choice, guaranteed to you via the Natural Rights of Liberty, and “Pursuit of” Happiness. If you do not want the responsibility of a firearm, don’t take on this challenge, by all means do not be persuaded in anyway to go out and buy a gun. You also have the rights of Free Speech, and Freedom of the Press, granted by the First Amendment, exercise them freely, but; justly.

As per Terrorists; It is quite accurate to say that the job of a Terrorist is to keep his/her plans quiet until they strike. For a non-citizen, not guaranteed the right to bear arms in our Constitution to be granted the ability to purchase a gun here, is a ridiculous notion. If we prevent non citizens access to guns, that will have a definite effect on how they commit terrorist acts here. The recent Orlando Mass Shooting doesn’t fall under this category; The Shooter was a U.S. Citizen; Granted all the rights of the Declaration, as well as the Constitution, including the right to due process, which unfortunately bars us from taking away both his right to purchase guns, as well as the guns he already owned. So unfortunately I only partially agree with the Idea of preemptively preventing non-citizens from purchasing guns. During investigation; citizens do not give up their right of due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

I have heard many opinions that he, and pretty much every other perpetrator of such crimes, had mental health issues; was this documented by a respectable member of the mental health field? Is there such a thing? We require serious Mental Health reform within our Health System, It is currently the most corrupt field within the medical community. Wouldn’t it be nice to have positive Mental Health exercises and techniques taught in public school along with good hygiene? Perhaps not have corporations whose business model is to take on as many mentally disabled clients as possible, while providing the lowest possible level of care, purely for profit? I would have to agree that anyone committing a crime, or having an addiction has mental health issues; but, what is the criteria for determining what issues warrant the removal of citizen rights? This is an area that requires much attention in my opinion.

As per criminals, not being legally allowed the right to own weapons of any type, We already have laws pertaining to this issue; I agree that non-violent crimes, such as possession of marijuana should not be restricted in their rights further than they already have; I see marijuana use as a recreational or medical activity that has been unjustly restricted, as those particular laws do not protect the rights of citizens as illustrated in my earlier statement.

Pertaining to those that use guns as an “emotional band-aid”; There is no excuse to not secure a gun, and or maintain it, properly, period!  Gun Safety really is a simple set of tasks to follow, not doing them is irresponsible and requires education that any responsible gun owner follows to the “T”. Hobbyist’s should be and are held to the same criteria.

Those that conceal carry; these are the folks that are at the ready and fall under your warrior criteria, they know their weapon, they have been trained, they know the gun safety procedures, practice them, do not go out hoping for a chance to use them, but have them in case it is necessary to prevent a larger crime that would result in the death of fellow citizens. The training that you describe is covered by military soldiers in the area of urban warfare and does not require further training for civilian life. Both former military and Police enforcement officers, and off duty in both respects should fall under the same laws and rules as any other civilian, period, no difference of law should be afforded by status. The public display of firearms and credentials, while a deterrent, removes the element of surprise necessary to prevent such criminal activities from becoming much worse.

I would add that Law Enforcement Reform is also an important piece of the puzzle, often overlooked in this time of militarization of our local departments. The police enforcement agencies in the United States should fall under the same restrictions as to weapon types used as the citizens they are there to protect and serve. Expanded background checks should exist, and should be connected to a central system that is updated in a timely fashion, A mentally ill person, criminal… should be removed from access as quickly as possible after being deemed ineligible by sound reasoning, as a result of due process of law.

The Second Amendment:

“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.”

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free state” refers to the training and maintenance of the Militia used to protect it’s citizens. “The right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed” means just that. In a time of increased militarization of enforcement agencies, and corrupt political endeavors, this is more relevant than any other time in my own life.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s