In this piece from Balloon Juice, Tom Levenson makes the claim that the second amendment right to bear arms conflicts with the first amendment rights to freedom of assembly and religion. I find this claim to be somewhat valid, as many of the recent mass shootings can have their motive attributed to people attacking others on the basis of religion and other first amendment rights. These attacks then conflict with one's first amendment rights by scaring people away from freedom of practice and speech.
6 comments:
While I understand where you are coming from, I’m not entirely sure the second amendment is the problem so much as the way people interpret it. True, people are abusing their rights by murdering people purely on the basis of differing views, ethnicities, or religions, but I think that it's a lack of response to the shootings that are the source of the problem. These shootings should set a precedent for change and stronger restrictions, something that the 2nd amendment shouldn’t be blamed for. Perhaps it is our duty as a nation to amend the constitution by adding restrictions, but I don’t think that removing the 2nd amendment would be possible or is necessarily the solution.
While I am not entirely sure about my position of whether we should keep or remove the second amendment, there is definitely a need to respond to these shootings as Carolos stated. Amendments based on the age of an individual and their psychological state of mind should be added in order to reduce the number of shootings. Also, the weapon holder and the weapon should be regulated frequently in order to see if the person is at a “normal” state of mind in order to enforce security amongst the community and nation. The state of mind of “normalcy” can be based on research. I also believe that there is a lack of a strong response coming from the government in regards to gun regulation. For example, according to the Intelligencer blog, they reported from CNN that “[s]ources close to the president reportedly worry that his focus may soon pass on to other interests, as it did after the Parkland shooting when Trump briefly advocated background checks before settling back into the routine.” Even though the government may declare statements after a shooting, I believe that these actions are not being carried out completely and effectively, resulting in a constant pattern of shooting.
Link to Inteligencer post: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/08/trump-convinced-mcconnell-wants-gun-reform-but-aides-say-no.html
I do somewhat agree with you, to an extent. However, I don’t see much of a connection with the first and second amendments. While it is true some of these gun attacks have been because of racism and different views on religion, some of them aren’t. I think a lot of this gun violence has to do with the mental state people are in to make them carry out such an act. As Carlos said, people are definitely abusing the right to bear arms, but there are also people who obtain guns that shouldn’t. There needs to be stricter enforcements on gun control and better ways to check who owns guns and how their mental state is to be carrying one. People should have the right to carry a gun for their own protection, but once something happens to them psychologically, the should be checked to make sure they are still thinking clearly so the gun is not used for harm.
I agree with Carlos that the solution is not to attack the Second Amendment. But, by amending the Second Amendment to reduce a citizen's right to a gun, citizens lose a piece of their fundamental right to freedom, which would essentially result in the same arguments happening right now--that legislation is infringing on people's rights. While I agree that change needs to be made with how guns are handled, restrictions on guns may only make other people angry, potentially leading to more extreme reactions from said people. Perhaps, the best solution is not legislative change, but social change. Because of the checks and balances, legislation would not create immediate change, which is the goal. However, if the President were to denounce gun violence or suggest a new way of thinking about guns, that may lead to a greater nationwide change than any legislation can in the near future.
I understand where you are trying to get at here, Shirleen, but I don't think these things would work. If the president denounced gun violence or suggest a new way of thinking, in no way is it going to change most people views on guns. If someone is really having a problem with gun violence and wants to react in a violent way, what the president says isn't going to change what he decides to do or not. Although, to fix this problem I really don't have a answer. Even if we went as far as to ban guns, there would still be a massive underground operation to smuggle guns in. If someone really wanted to get a gun, they'll be able to get it, just like our massive drug smuggling problem. This would also be taking away our right to freedom to bear arms, and i agree with you here, Shirleen, would make a lot of people angry. i think for now, we are going to have to follow the path of background checks, but take it a lot more seriously then we have.
Like stated before, I'm not sure if there is a connection between the 1st and 2nd Amendment involving the recent shootings. I believe that many shootings have been a result of unstable individuals taking advantage of the 2nd Amendment in order to hurt others. I don't see many of the shooters as proceeding due to their 1st Amendment being infringed upon. I do believe that the issue of shootings needs to be addressed, but I don't think that attempting to tighten background checks and or other means of obtaining guns will be possible. There are so many individuals who passionately believe in the 2nd Amendment, that they will do whatever is necessary to prevent tighter gun laws. This could include causing a filibuster within Congress, as the members have already done with other legislative issues. I think that in order to address any important legislative issue such as background checks for guns, Congress first must find a way to resolve the filibusters so that they may continue to pass legislation efficiently.
Post a Comment