Now according to my fiancé, my political correctness filter is still in place, so I may seem hypocritical in what I am about to say, but after reading the columns, I have to agree with both views. Our amendment rights should be protected, first and foremost. But I also think that there should be some control on the sales of firearms.
There are several California State laws, that I think are good. I could just be naïve, but, hear me out.
In 1991, California passed a law that Handgun purchasers must obtain safety training and certificates before buying a weapon. To me that’s smart, everyone who has a weapon should know how to handle the weapon before given the chance to have one in the home. To me, it shows competence.
In 1993, background checks for all gun buyers. Again, to me it’s smart. If you’re convicted of a violent crime or misdemeanor, you are barred from owning or buying a gun. I don’t know how it is in the rest of the country concerning this however.
In 1994, Firearms can’t be carried within 1,000 feet of schools either public or private. For as long as I’ve been paying attention to the news, I don’t remember any school shootings IN California in the last 15 years or so… I could be wrong in my assessment.
I just think that when it comes to firearms in general, COMMON SENSE should have precedence concerning laws and controls that some may find that it limits the second amendment. I know some out there are thinking Government that interferes with it’s peoples rights guaranteed by our constitution is bad. But sometimes, I think, they have some good ideas.
I know that if people really wanted to buy a gun and the gun store won’t let them, they will find a way to buy an unregistered one out of someone’s trunk somewhere. The chances that that gun will be used in a violent crime are high, I just don’t want to be the one that that gun is used on, or anyone that I know or love. Like my fiancé always says, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
I also know that it is impossible to make a world without guns now as well, people need ways to defend themselves, it’s in human nature to protect what is theirs by any means necessary. How many people carry pocket knives with them?
I'm sure your article was well intended and tried to be balanced but I would offer a couple of points for your consideration. One, "safety training and certificates". On it's face, this seems "resonable", but let's change the word gun to vote and see how "resonable" that seems. It wasn't too long ago that this arguement about "competence" was used to keep blacks from voting. Besides, the test is a joke and like the driver's test, doesn't keep people from doing stupid things.
ReplyDeleteTwo, the sign out in front of my school declaring the 1000 ft "gun free zone" won't stop anyone from bringing a gun on campus (including teachers and administrators). It happened twice in my time at a local high school. Besides, 1000 ft is almost 2/10 ths of a mile and in the intercity, that covers a lot of territory. Those that would do harm will not obey the sign or the law.
Three, as to government interference, this should be kept to a minimum. Everytime the government steps into you personal life you loose a bit more of freedom. Some are willing to give all their freedom away for the supposed safety the government will provide but look at anything the government has tried to control an make your decision based on their success at doing so.
It's not about guns, it's about control.