American rights and the Constitution are both reasons why the United States is a wonderful land of liberty. However, as time has advanced many laws have either been reconstructed or repealed. Recently, President Barack Obama proposed gun control legislation that inflamed the division among the American citizens into two groups, those who favor the restrictions on firearms, and those who opposed the regulations. So who are these gun grabbers and gun nuts and what factors differentiate the two groups?
These people come from different townships, religions and lifestyles and most of them do not share the same values, morals, or political views with the opposing side. The division within the nation has stressed the deeply distraught United States Congress by adding on to the controversial list of legalization. Though the United States House of Representatives decides on many disputable laws daily, the final deliberation can be an unbearable task when considering the opinion of a fractured country, personal viewpoints, and the constitution.
These conflicts are what makes or breaks a representative and while persuasion is a difficult task many members are forced to fight for what they believe in no matter the cost. Many representatives may lose support from individuals in their district and others will lose their chances of incumbency completely. Though this topic and other recent controversial issues may offend a particular group of Americans, they are still crucial problems that need to be recognized and compromised, in order to heal the wounds of our great nation.
So what was the historical background that inspired Americans to be so passionate and involved about this topic? What events triggered these issues to arise and what would it take to subside the majority of anger in the nation? 1364, the year in which the first use of a firearm was recorded. The purpose of a firearm back then was to defeat enemies in the state of battle, similar to a cannon according to (Gun History). Even so, the gun history of the world and of the United State substantially differ.
The American Revolution, one of the most influential factors behind our liberated nation’s existence, would not have been successful without firearms. The militias, form by American colonists relied on privately owned guns, stockpiled weapons, and gunpowder reserved for emergencies according to the novel (Gun Fight). Without these possessions of weapons, the United States of America may not have existed. This is why our forefathers amended the constitution in 1791, only four years after the document was written.
They believed that it was important to have protection against a potential threat such as an enemy or even one’s own government. Thus the Second Amendment was developed as, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ” (The Legal Information Institute) Many American currently believe that if our ancestors knew the significance of a musket, it would be unpatriotic to devalue the right to bear arms today. Recently there has been a lot more public, mass shootings than ever before.
This is what sparked a fire in those who favor gun control, which resulted in the irritation of those who favor gun rights. The gun haters proposed that enough has happened to our country and the only solution to this disease would be to pinch it off from the source. However, this solution caused a lot of disdain from those who appreciate guns. This additional group that believes firearms are not the source of the killings, but the people who need psychiatric assistance are the actual problem. Unfortunately, people are much more difficult to track and manage than a manufactured item.
This is why this controversy has divided families and our United States government. No side finds it necessary to compromise if it would result in losing the battle. Even the slightest miscalculation in legislation could lose the interest of both cultures, gun supporters and gun restrictors. People who are distraught about a decision will naturally be more passionate than those who approve it. In this case, both sides are simply frustrated at each other because neither of them have won the war yet. Nonetheless, those who appreciate the gun laws, we as a nation already obtain are considered the gun nuts.
These gun nuts are everyday fellow Americans who are passionate about their constitutional right to bear arms. Notable gun nuts would obviously include governmental groups such as the National Rifle Association. This organization spent millions of dollars backing a presidential candidate who was in favor of the second amendment. A lobbyist for the NRA, James Jay Baker took advocacy for the gun rights culture to a new high by rallying a crowd in Kansas City. The Institute for Justice, a public interest civil rights law firm, has also been a very influential gun supporting group throughout the process of lobbying Congress and the Courts. Gun Fight pg. 52)
Though these important organizations are doing most of the heavy lifting in Washington, they must have support from ordinary citizens to fight for these rights. So where do these everyday advocates reside and what common ground do these gun fanatics share other than shooting the bullet? Most gun supporters are the average right-wing conservatives. This means that they are generally anglo-American, Christians, who grew up surrounded by gun culture through either the military, hunting, or a shooting sport.
Predominantly, the average gun supporter lives in what is known as the deep south, rural America, according to (The American Conservative. com). This is likely because those that live in the metropolitan area, support gun control, solely based on a cosmetic opinion. These people believe that if a gun is larger it instantly becomes more dangerous or that a pistol grip can somehow change the gun from semi automatic into a fully automatic firearm. This act of misinformation presents the supporting side of the gun control legislation, the gun grabbers.
A formal introduction to the gun grabbers would also require background information. So what characteristic would drive someone to fear a weapon. Inner city gang violence is one factor that most supporters of the gun control agree is the result of a lack of proper management in guns circulation. However, they are passive when it comes to the idea of having a gun for self-defense. Most gun grabbers believe that the best way to end violence from terrorists and gang members would be to restrict what kind of firearms can be obtained and regulate who is allowed access to the weapons.
As President Obama’s plan to reduce gun violence states, they will close background check loopholes to keep guns out of dangerous hands, ban military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and taking other common-sense steps to reduce gun violence(Now is the time. ) Though background checks are very beneficial to our government system, in this case, many of the people who should not have guns would find a way to obtain a weapon, no matter how difficult background checks are, especially with all the rifles already in circulation.
The banning of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines may be helpful in the fight against mass murders, however, those are not the only threatening guns. Just because they look frightening does not mean they do the most damage, it all depends on the situation at hand. So, though the gun grabbers culture have been lobbying through the current president, the other majority of gun lovers would be more helpful in determining what guns should be regulated if any, because they are the people who know the most about artillery.
This is why, if I was a Representative in the House I would request to form a conference committee within my legislative district to determine the positive and negatives of both opinions. Though my personal opinion on Obama’s proposed gun legislation is obvious, I would still listen to the opinion of my fellow House members, such as Nancy Pelosi and Scott DesJarlais because of their conflicting viewpoints on this matter. Then I would consider the constitution and laws that are already in place, as I would not want to step on any toes.
If those within my district did not agree with the legislative decision, then they should vote for different representatives in the years to come. The House of Representatives, also know as the people’s house, is made up of four hundred thirty-five members and if the people do not agree with our ruling, it is the people’s right to speak with their vote come next election. I would most likely not be an incumbent, however, I would know I did everything in my power to be a fair representation of the people and the constitution. Our American government system is an intricate form of checks and balances when it comes to the law making process.
It is quite difficult to get legislation approved by the House of Representatives, Senate, and the President. So when someone suggests that any of these jobs would not be challenging, they would not have a full understanding of the occupation. These collective bodies require committees within their bicameral legislatures to accomplish agendas more proficiently. There will always be people that disagree, however, as long as our legislative body is following the law and taking both side’s opinions into consideration, then there should not be any ethical internal conflict.
Though our nation might be divided and the moment, we are a strong sovereign country based on a free democracy that in reality is a representative republic. The citizens of our country and the laws that secure the land from evil are what makes the United States a wonderful place to live. Though the future of gun control laws may not be clear as of now, hopefully, our nation’s leaders have our best interest in mind. Therefore, we must fight for what we believe in and, while still supporting our strong national bonds.