Gun
Legislation
ISSUE: Should
the Federal government divest gun control to State legislatures?
FACTS:
The United States
is a homogenation of
Anglo-European influence diluted with Mexican, Indian, Asian, African
and
former Soviet block nationals attempting to compose one people. Federal guidelines establish clear moral
premises for safe coexistence among citizens but can not sensibly
impose
blanket regulations over radically varying geographies.
The economies in each area along with the
complexities of survival are not the same.
When
the United States
was founded, our National cause was focused against a blind, unfair
policy by a
government seated overseas that would not respond to the judicial needs
of the
time. On July 4th, 1776, King
George wrote in his diary, “Nothing
unusual happened today.”
231
years later, States have found themselves unrepresented by our Federal
government,
not totally unlike the Colonists grievances against the King. Congress now contains the very poisons that
our Nation fought wars to prevent. In
light
of this endless diversity in infinite combinations, should the Federal
government divest gun control to the States?
DISCUSSION:
PRO:
1.
In gun-culture: Music industry executives claim that adding the
“Explicit
Lyrics” warning label to a mediocre album guarantees off-the-chart
sales where
the same album would fail without the label. Gun-culture
promotes violence and anarchy; influences
fashion and
provides a stark contrast to holiness: Gangsters
tattoo guns on their bodies and airbrush them on
their
cars.
Outlaws
transpose good for evil to gain the respect of other outlaws. By proliferating a
controlled
substance, such as guns, a gangster can gain the admiration of his gang. Illegal acts are perceived as statements of
courage. Many criminal elements in America
are
organized where pledges can be ordered to settle a score [murder a
rival] to
gain full membership. Some gang
initiations call for a drive-by shooting. Appropriate
State legislation in response to crime in
denser populations
may not be appropriate in every jurisdiction. This
is a State by State issue.
2.
There is the fear that every man, as his own island, needs adequate
resources
to repel the malicious intentions of criminally-minded outsiders. Somebody could hurt him or his family. Perhaps he may need to hunt for food or
assist a citizen militia. There are
paramilitary and soldier-of-fortune mercenaries who live by the gun and
connoisseurs who admire firearms for their craftsmanship and artistic
merit. Federally mandated controls on gun
ownership
could handicap the ambition of citizens whose interests are lawful,
cultural or
nonviolent in nature. This would provide
a culturally valid reason to divest Federal powers to the States.
3.
In her study of crime laws in England,
Joyce Lee Malcolm said, “Eighty years of increasingly stringent gun
regulations
– the strictest gun regulations of any democracy – have failed to stop,
or
even slow, the rise in gun crime.” (Haley). This
most disheartening statement by a leading researcher
and authority
on the subject is perhaps the most empirical explanation for why Nationally mandated gun control has no effect. Non-democratic nations do require more guns
to maintain tight public order in a restricted society, but when the
citizens
of free nations surrender their weapons voluntarily – their right to
freedom ends. The surest indicator of
political change
comes through sustained effort by the government to enforce nationwide
controls
on firearms. Each State knows what’s
best for that State, to include any gun legislation pertaining.
CON:
1.
The loudest overtures spill from the anti-gun element(s) in every free
society
that take dramatic license to personify and animate an assemblage of
machined
parts that comprise a firearm. Law
enforcement and outlaws both use weapons to effect their respective
causes and
in either case, the weapons are not alive. Weapons
of war are not alive. It
is strictly the motives of the barer that can stand in judgment for how
a
weapon is used. It is precisely
outspoken people like this, who elicit the sympathies of those who are
barely
capable of thought, who prevail upon government to dream up frivolous
legislation to damn everyone. Because
law enforcement can be too efficient in some areas, those protected
have only the
TV for a contrast on crime. It shouldn’t
surprise anyone that most media executives live in gated communities
where guns
are very much alive; they want guns captured, banned and destroyed.
2.
The attraction that guns have on mortals is POWER and he with the
biggest gun
wins. Guns give courage to the gutless,
replace
taboo with permission and open vault doors that should be closed. Police statistics from around the world,
omitting
crimes of passion, attest that crime is
committed to acquire power. Money
is
power and guns provide access to the money. People’s
lust for power or political ambition can explain
why gun
control seems to have no effect. If we
inflate
the question to represent a single National legacy, than Hitler, Mao
and Stalin
are the greatest testaments to effective gun control.
When we allow celebrities to turn a national
debate into a trite, highly biased issue, the lack of equally financed
opposition makes America
believe that Hollywood
knows what’s best for everyone. The
media is in a catch-22: Freedom means better stories and higher
ratings, but
when the media tries to court too many politicians and influence public
opinion, they invite State censorship instead. The
result is a media that promotes tighter Federal
controls without
realizing that they are in fact, being controlled.
3.
Firearm manufactures have immunity in any event, not unlike banks that
finance
both sides of the same war. Manufacturers
know that their products will be in greater
demand if
banned to private ownership. They know
the black-market skyrockets where their products are banned; Nations
with
strict gun control policies must buy an even greater number of
State-owned
firearms to enforce tighter public order in societies where private
ownership
is illegal. The manufacturers are in a
win-win situation since rogue States have historically courted such
industries. Since the US is
the
premier manufacturer of weapons in the world, foreign trade falls under
Federal
guidelines so that States need not worry about trade affairs abroad. This is an example of Federalist thinking
where the concept of government divesting anything is mute.
CONCLUSION:
In
the Old West, there were lawmen and outlaws. The
weapons they used to commit crimes or uphold
justice were only weapons. The weapons
did not have a voice but were commonplace. Weapons, in and of themselves,
warranted negligible Federal
and State concern. This holistic
view of weapons enabled citizens to distinguish the good from the evil
without
personifying the weapon which was neither good nor evil.
By turning the weapon into an entity, as if
the weapon itself had a form of self expression, our modern,
blame-happy society
has seduced even our most level-headed authorities to accept that … ‘guns’ … are indeed sentient
objects capable of harming others. I emphatically believe that if we could
dissolve this fictional ‘third person,’ that the issue of gun control
would
resume its former maturity.
Guns
are not the issue and have never been the issue. Those
who demonstrate this one prerequisite
for sanity are qualified to influence firearm policies within their
sphere of
influence. Naturally, policies that are
sensible in downstate New York could
not be
comically enforced in Klondike,
Alaska.
Those entrusted with composing firearms
guidelines should forge crime data into the most realistically
utilitarian
ordinances for their district. When the
Federal government realizes that the safety of Americans can not be
provided
for by blanket gun controls, then divestment of those powers to the
States will
mark the first giant leap toward National sanity.
REFERENCES:
Haley,
Keith (2004). With Liberty and Guns for All. Acton, Massachusetts:
Copley Custom Publishing Group.
ISSUE:
Why
does gun control seem to have the opposite effect?
FACTS:
People want what they can’t have, whether it’s God
telling Adam and Eve not to partake of the forbidden fruit or
legislation that
bans the sale of alcoholic beverages. Banning
a substance only makes it more desirable. In
the case for and against guns, it is the
relentless attention that edifies the worse case scenarios that cause
the
greatest harm. Guns objectify power to
the user; many of whom have the aptitude to wield that power
responsibly where
others simply want the respect of fellow gang members.
The point is: When ‘a thing’ is placed
off-limits – it suits Human nature to ‘want’ whatever that thing is.
DISCUSSION:
PRO:
1.
In gun-culture: Music industry executives claim that adding the
“Explicit
Lyrics” warning label to a mediocre album guarantees off-the-chart
sales where
the same album would fail without the label. Gun-culture
promotes violence and anarchy; influences
fashion and
provides a stark contrast to holiness: Gangsters
tattoo guns on their bodies and airbrush them on
their
cars.
Outlaws
transpose good for evil to gain the respect of other outlaws. By proliferating a
controlled
substance, such as guns, a gangster can gain the admiration of his gang. Illegal acts are perceived as statements of
courage. Many criminal elements in America
are
organized where pledges can be ordered to settle a score [murder a
rival] to
gain full membership. Some gang
initiations call for a drive-by shooting. This
partially explains why gun control has the opposite
effect.
2.
Firearms manufactures have immunity in any event, not totally unlike
banks that
finance both sides of the same war. Manufacturers
know that their products will be in greater
demand if
banned to private ownership. They know
the black-market skyrockets where their products are banned; Nations
with
strict gun control policies must buy an even greater number of
State-owned firearms
to enforce order in a society where private ownership is illegal. The manufacturer is in a win-win situation
since rogue States have historically courted such industries. This partially explains why gun control has
the opposite affect.
3.
There is the fear that every man, as his own island, needs adequate
resources
to repel the malicious intentions of criminally-minded outsiders. Somebody could hurt him or his family. Perhaps he may need to hunt for food or
assist a citizen militia. There are
paramilitary and soldier-of-fortune mercenaries who live by the gun and
connoisseurs who admire firearms for their craftsmanship and artistic
merit. Civilian controls on gun ownership
could
handicap the ambition of citizens whose interests are lawful, cultural
or
nonviolent in nature. This partially
explains why gun control has the opposite effect.
CON:
1.
In her study of crime laws in England,
Joyce Lee Malcolm said, “Eighty years of increasingly stringent gun
regulations
– the strictest gun regulations of any democracy – have failed to stop,
or even
slow, the rise in gun crime.” (Haley). This
most disheartening statement by a leading researcher
and authority
on the subject is perhaps the most empirical explanation for why gun
control
has no effect. In contrast to item 3
above, non-democratic nations require more guns to contain a restricted
society.
2.
The silliest overtures come from the anti-gun element(s) in every free
society
that take dramatic license to personify and animate an assemblage of
machined
parts that comprise a firearm. Law
enforcement and outlaws both use weapons to effect their respective
causes and
in either case, the weapons are not alive. Weapons
of war are not alive. It
is strictly the motives of the barer that can stand in judgment for how
a
weapon is used. In my opinion, this is
the ‘id’ root core for why gun control has no effect
3.
The attraction that guns have on mortals is POWER and he with the
biggest gun
wins. Guns give courage to the gutless,
replace
taboo with permission and open vault doors that should be closed. Police statistics from around the world,
omitting
crimes of passion, attest that crime is committed to acquire power. Money is power and guns provide access to the
money. People’s lust for power or
political ambition can explain why gun control seems to have no effect. If we inflate
the question to represent a single National legacy, than Hitler, Mao
and Stalin
are the greatest testaments to effective gun control.
Lets not go
there.
CONCLUSION:
In
the Old West, there were lawmen and outlaws. The
weapons they used to commit crimes or uphold justice
were only
weapons. The weapons did not have a
voice. This holistic view of weapons
enabled
citizens to distinguish the good from the evil without personifying the
weapon
which was neither good nor evil. By
turning the weapon into an entity, as if the weapon itself had a form
of self
expression, our modern, blame-happy society has seduced even our most
level-headed authorities to accept that … ‘guns’ … are
indeed sentient
objects capable of harming others. Guns
are not the issue and have never been the issue. Those
who demonstrate this one prerequisite
for sanity are qualified to influence firearm policies within their
sphere of
influence. Naturally, policies that are
sensible in upstate New York could
not be comically
enforced in Klondike,
Alaska.
Those entrusted with composing firearms guidelines should
forge crime
data into the most realistically utilitarian ordinances for their
district. When the Federal government
backs off and allows States to do precisely that, gun control will no
longer
‘seem’ to have the opposite effect.
REFERENCES:
Haley, Keith (2004). With Liberty
and Guns for All. Acton,
Massachusetts:
Copley Custom
Publishing Group.
