During the last class in our discussion of liberalism we touched on the idea of how it may relate to gun regulation. It is written into the bill of rights as the second amendment that we have the right to bear arms. This was added in efforts to expand our freedom and to ensure prevention of federal oppression.
Though this right of ours is widely debated politically it is not the existence of gun ownership that is usually questioned but rather it's extent. Although the second amendment was added for the purpose of protecting our freedom, it is also prone to infringe on it. The ease at which guns can be acquired is often held accountable for violence that might have been otherwise prevented.
Unlike most freedoms, which I believe should be given with no reservations, right to gun acquisition is a bit different. Because of gun ownership's possibility to affect safety of others, it is a right that arguably should be controlled. I believe this is a special case in which maintaining the maximum freedom for the entire county requires rules. Though regulation may limit the freedom for acquisition of arms, it protects our right to life and helps ensure safety.
In comparison to other similar nations, the US has a very large homicide rate. I believe that to maintain the greatest freedom for all citizens, it is necessary to narrow the types of guns allowed and enact more extensive background checks.
This is a complicated one as you point out, and it is particularly complicated because we have to be explicitly Whiggish in interpreting this idea. "Arm" simply did not mean the same thing in 1791.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading your post, I'm going to have to disagree with you. I believe that stricter gun laws will only make people less safe. The problem with gun control laws is that they are frequently targeted at curtailing the rights of lawful citizens and not criminals. What legislators need to take into consideration when proposing new laws as they pertain to the use and ownership of firearms is that criminals do not go through legal channels to purchase firearms, they steal them or buy them out of the trunk of a car. America is a place that is supposed to have freedom, so we should be able to have any type of gun we could possibly want, under the circumstance that you know how to handle one and be safe with it. Consider the crime rate. Violent crime goes down when more people legally carry guns: Right-to-carry laws have been on the rise in the U.S. nation’s murder rate has decreased 52 percent to a 47-year low, and the total violent crime rate has decreased 48 percent to a 37-year low. If this is true, what's the purpose of stricter gun laws?
ReplyDeleteThose are interesting statistics, it's definitely an issue where there are fine lines you have to pay attention to. The statistics I was looking at were in comparison to other countries. We have the largest firearm-by-homicide rate of the world's developed nations. I believe the purpose of stricter laws would be to ensure that lawful citizens receive the right to own guns rather than unlawful citizens, so I agree with you in that aspect. However, I don't think that it's necessary that we have access to all kinds of guns. Though I believe it's important that we maintain freedom, I also believe that we should be careful when freedoms begin to compromise safety.
ReplyDelete