from The Voice's "Political Perspectives" published on April 18, 2013
http://www.buvoice.com/opinion/2013/4/18/political-perspectives.html
In the aftermath of many disastrous events, there is an ever increasing pressure on legislatures to create a ban on what has been characterized as “assault weapons.” Speaking directly on emotion rather than reason, many citizens of the United States fall victim to the propaganda released by the pundits in favor of gun control legislation. Throughout this ongoing debate, it is clear that many gun control advocates enjoy the abuse and exploitation of the word “assault weapon.” In reality, while speaking on facts, Dr. Edward Ezell, a preeminent expert in the firearms field, along side the United States Defense Department, stated “a key characteristic of a true assault weapon is that it must of the capability of full automatic fire.” Even with these type of statements, it is evident that a mischaracterization of these weapons has been presented to the American people. Factually speaking, and assault weapon is a fully automatic weapon, which is already banned by the Gun Control Act of 1968. If legislatures and political pundits would like to limit the availability of these weapons, well, their battle has already been fought, and they accomplished this many years ago. Sadly however, it is evident that the American people have been manipulated into believing a false image of the weapons that are both legal and illegal in this country today. Based on this, it is entirely fair to say that we as Americans need to have a better understanding of the sanctions being implemented on our constitution by gun control advocates today.
For the purpose of this piece and for the better understanding and knowledge of the readers, it is responsible of both sides to begin referring to these proposed banned weapons as semi-automatic rifles rather than the abused and false term of “assault weapons.” As this misconception of the public has been revealed, it is time to dig into the policies that have been proposed, as well as the ones that have failed. In the heat of emotion and lack of understanding, the Assault Weapons ban of 1994 was implemented. Ten years later, it failed. Through this 10 year time period, 14 mass shootings took place which included, the notorious 1999 Columbine High School shooting. While the American people were victims to a pointless ban, it is shown through statistics that the ’94 ban was avoidable. As a matter of fact, Gallup and the U.S Justice Department have reported that crime began to fall prior to the ’94 ban, and continued to fall while it was in place. Even more importantly, this downward trend is still evident today as there is a consistent decrease in violent crimes taking place. It also evident that these type of policies are entirely unnecessary, as violent crimes committed with these weapons are truly minimal. This is supported through many statistics, one being presented by the Borough of Justice Statistics, when reported that “violent criminals only carry or use a military-type gun in about one percent of crimes nationwide.” In addition to that, according to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports in 2011, of the 8,583 firearm homicides that occurred, 6,220 of them were committed by handguns while only 323 were committed by rifles. This goes to show that the bans proposed are targeting absolutely the wrong groups of weapons, and it is only a matter of time that the failures of previous bans repeat themselves.
One of the most respected members of society, and a group that is consistently in the line of fire, and should be the epitome of gun control, is in strong opposition of the proposed bans. A survey conducted by PoliceOne.com in 2013 shows that officers are overwhelmingly against the proposed legislation. When asked if a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazine would reduce violent crime, 95.7% of the respondents replied with the answer “no.” The people who are facing violent, destructive criminals on a daily basis, overwhelmingly agree that these types of bans simply do not work.
Out of all arguments by gun control advocates, probably the most disturbing is that the constitution does not protect citizens from obtaining semi-automatic rifles. Sadly, they are entirely mistaken and false in stating this. The second amendment states “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.” Gun control advocates say that bearing arms is only allowed for a well-regulated militia, mistakenly believing citizens are not citizens permitted to exercise this right. This is incorrect, as stated by the U.S Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, “militia” was defined in the Militia Act of 1792, which said that it included every free adult male in the United States. Moreover, in Supreme Court case U.S. v. Miller, the Court stated “the Militia, comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” As Americans, we need to view such debate based off facts, and speak, decide, and primarily vote on facts, rather than emotion. Do not succumb to the overwhelming pressure and commotion to act, created by gun control supporters. Rather, analyze the facts and act based on what has proven to work, rather what has proven to fail.
No comments:
Post a Comment