In light of recent debate on gun control, thousands of people marched together on Saturday from the Capitol to the Washington Monument reports the Washington Post.
The marchers help signs paying tribute to the Sandy Hook victims, a school shooting in Newton,Connecticuit. Many marchers carried posters with faces of the victims, while others held signs saying "What would Jesus pack?" or "Gun Control Now" and "Stop NRA." U.S. Secretary of Education spoke to the marchers in a rallying area telling them "This is about gun responsibility this is about gun safety; this is about fewer dead Americans, fewer dead children." Other marchers concurred with the statements recalling that upon hearing about the Newton shooting, the first thing she thought about was her own children.
The march was organized by Molly Smith, an artistic director of Washington's Arena Stage reports Fox News. She began by posting on Facebook, and the event eventually gained momentum by drawing support from Gun Control groups along with two churches. Smith believes that while it is important to consider mental health issues and violence in the media, the issue still begins with guns. "The Second Amendment gives us the right to own guns, but it's not the right to own any gun," she says.
Not all marchers were looking for merely gun control. Some marchers were even seen holding signs that requested that America "repeal the Second Amendment." One such marcher was named James Agenbroad from Maryland. He believes that without repealing the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court will continue to vote against restrictions on guns.
This rally was not held without opposition. Across the street gun rights advocates, in a much smaller demonstration, rallied together to project their views. Present in this rally was the Dick Heller, notable for being plaintiff in a Supreme Court Case that lead to the overturning of a handgun ban. He believes that we need armed guards to protect our children. "I don't know what their thinking was. Al I can't understand is why didn't they protect their children like the government protects itself?" he says. (As reported by this CNN article.)
America wants change. As representatives, senators and other lawmakers alike push for gun reform, many citizens stand behind them. Those present today were just one example of those working to make a difference and getting heard. Even in face of opposition such as the National Rifle Association which has worked openly to prevent reforms.
Will our government be able to pass meaningful gun control reform that changes the way weapons are sold today? Is it about background checks, about banning certain weapons or a combination of both? Do you support gun control reform or does the Second Amendment really protect our rights to all types of guns?
2 comments:
I think that repealing the Second Amendment is too extreme of a view. This civil liberty has been guaranteed to Americans over 200 years, and there are too many people who will accuse the government of becoming too controlling.
Although I am in favor of stricter gun control legislation, there is the inherent problem of enforcement of these laws. Like the 18th Amendment, which used to prohibit alcoholic beverages, the demand for guns are so high in the U.S. that people will undoubtedly find ways to sneak around any kind of stricter gun control laws. Background checks can help prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, but what about the millions of guns already in possession by Americans? How will the federal government be able to prevent those from becoming misused? After all, Adam Lanza didn't purchase his own gun, but used his mother's gun in the Sandy Hook shooting.
Although altering the Constitution is a significant undertaking and I am not one hundred percent sure about my own stance on gun control, this movement seems to have merit. I read something somewhere (it may have been on this very blog, I don't remember) and it struck a chord with me--someone said something along the lines of: "The Second Amendment made more sense when guns had basically one shot in a given amount of time and when you had to be standing fairly close to someone to do any real damage." The situation today is vastly different--these days, the power of just one gun from a sizable distance is enough to kill many people, making assassination and mass murder much more prominent issues, as we have seen. Is it right to allow someone to have such a deadly power?
Sally does make a valid point, however--with or without stricter gun control laws, it seems like people will still find ways to acquire them. But would heavier gun restrictions do more harm than good, or would the benefits outweigh the downfalls?
Post a Comment