news
12-22-2015, 12:37 PM
"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 Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The aforementioned 27 words may be the most emotionally charged language in the Constitution. Many Americans who may not know the difference between Charles Dickens and Marcel Proust know those 27 words -- at least some version of it.
Guns are as critical to the American narrative as the contributions of Jefferson, Hamilton and Washington. The war to gain independence was not exactly a series of non-violent civil disobedience campaigns.
Over the years, the gun debate has created an almost paradoxical pursuit to be a nation that protects its citizens (gun laws) while providing the constitutional right to bear arms.
We wait for what is almost assured to be the next mass shooting to engage in the cacophony of the gun debate. It is a discussion in the public discourse that possesses some linkage to sensationalism. But it is almost guaranteed to simmer down after dominating several consecutive news cycles.
The gun debate invariably translates into preventing mass shootings. Mass shootings, according to the FBI, are simply defined as multiple victims of gun violence. At the time of this writing, there have been 353 mass shootings in the United States in 2015.
Much of the gun debate is dominated by the sensational. It is the elementary school in Newtown, the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs or the center that serves people with developmental disabilities in San Bernardino that gets our attention. We don't possess the bandwidth to lend our attention beyond a glancing acknowledgement to urban cities, like, say, Chicago, which has been averaging 1.3 murders per day in 2015.
The majority of the murders in urban America bear little or no relationship to the profile of the sensational mass murders. Beyond the gun being the primary source for death, victim and victimizer are most likely a low-income person of color (predominately male), and the gun is unregistered.
Our collective dismay (albeit temporary) at sensational gun violence is matched only by our desensitized response to urban violence that occurs far more frequently.
As I wrote back in 2013, many would welcome the banning of assault weapons, high-capacity magazine clips and closing the loopholes for background checks. But would it curtail the gun violence that is pervasive in so many areas of urban America?
In urban cities, the unregistered firearm presents more of a problem than any of the issues the president has sought to address. Cities like Chicago and elsewhere need draconian laws on unregistered firearms.
There could be a grace period to register guns that have been inherited or obtained through other legitimate methods. But after that period passes, possession of an unregistered firearm should carry a heavy penalty. Gun buyback programs make for good publicity but do little to address the problem.
Would stronger laws on unregistered firearms eliminate black market gun sales? No. But they could serve as a strong deterrent for some.
Moreover, we have not reached the maturity to move away from the one-size-fits-all gun debate, which serves only to keep us in the quagmire of political stagnation. The challenges of urban America are not those living in rural areas.
There must also be a distinction made between NRA leadership and gun owners who may or may not be members of the NRA.
Though difficult to be heard above the noise of the debate, but according to a recent study by Public Policy Polling, 83 percent of gun owners support background checks, 79 percent want better enforcement of current laws and 66 percent say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who backs the current laws, compared with only 19 percent who say they would be less likely to.
These numbers reflect that the political will of NRA leadership is closer aligned with elected officials than the legions of responsible gun owners who support common sense laws.
I happen to believe the "right to bear arms" portion of the Second Amendment is inextricably linked to "well-regulated," which means there is a role for government in the debate. That role should not be onerous, but its mere presence should not produce clarion calls of paranoia that government is out to take away all guns. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. (http://start.westnet.ca/newstempch.php?article=terms.html/) It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/rc/1/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/rc/1/rc.htm)
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/rc/2/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/rc/2/rc.htm)
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/rc/3/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/rc/3/rc.htm)
http://da.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/a2.img (http://da.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/a2.htm)
http://adchoice.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/ach.img (http://adchoice.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/ach.htm)http://pi.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/a2t.imghttp://pi2.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/a2t2.imghttp://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677045/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/mf.gif
More... (http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677045/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/l/0L0Shuffingtonpost0N0Cbyron0Ewilliams0Cenforcing0E that0Ewell0Eregul0Ib0I8860A5180Bhtml/story01.htm)
-- The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
The aforementioned 27 words may be the most emotionally charged language in the Constitution. Many Americans who may not know the difference between Charles Dickens and Marcel Proust know those 27 words -- at least some version of it.
Guns are as critical to the American narrative as the contributions of Jefferson, Hamilton and Washington. The war to gain independence was not exactly a series of non-violent civil disobedience campaigns.
Over the years, the gun debate has created an almost paradoxical pursuit to be a nation that protects its citizens (gun laws) while providing the constitutional right to bear arms.
We wait for what is almost assured to be the next mass shooting to engage in the cacophony of the gun debate. It is a discussion in the public discourse that possesses some linkage to sensationalism. But it is almost guaranteed to simmer down after dominating several consecutive news cycles.
The gun debate invariably translates into preventing mass shootings. Mass shootings, according to the FBI, are simply defined as multiple victims of gun violence. At the time of this writing, there have been 353 mass shootings in the United States in 2015.
Much of the gun debate is dominated by the sensational. It is the elementary school in Newtown, the Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs or the center that serves people with developmental disabilities in San Bernardino that gets our attention. We don't possess the bandwidth to lend our attention beyond a glancing acknowledgement to urban cities, like, say, Chicago, which has been averaging 1.3 murders per day in 2015.
The majority of the murders in urban America bear little or no relationship to the profile of the sensational mass murders. Beyond the gun being the primary source for death, victim and victimizer are most likely a low-income person of color (predominately male), and the gun is unregistered.
Our collective dismay (albeit temporary) at sensational gun violence is matched only by our desensitized response to urban violence that occurs far more frequently.
As I wrote back in 2013, many would welcome the banning of assault weapons, high-capacity magazine clips and closing the loopholes for background checks. But would it curtail the gun violence that is pervasive in so many areas of urban America?
In urban cities, the unregistered firearm presents more of a problem than any of the issues the president has sought to address. Cities like Chicago and elsewhere need draconian laws on unregistered firearms.
There could be a grace period to register guns that have been inherited or obtained through other legitimate methods. But after that period passes, possession of an unregistered firearm should carry a heavy penalty. Gun buyback programs make for good publicity but do little to address the problem.
Would stronger laws on unregistered firearms eliminate black market gun sales? No. But they could serve as a strong deterrent for some.
Moreover, we have not reached the maturity to move away from the one-size-fits-all gun debate, which serves only to keep us in the quagmire of political stagnation. The challenges of urban America are not those living in rural areas.
There must also be a distinction made between NRA leadership and gun owners who may or may not be members of the NRA.
Though difficult to be heard above the noise of the debate, but according to a recent study by Public Policy Polling, 83 percent of gun owners support background checks, 79 percent want better enforcement of current laws and 66 percent say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who backs the current laws, compared with only 19 percent who say they would be less likely to.
These numbers reflect that the political will of NRA leadership is closer aligned with elected officials than the legions of responsible gun owners who support common sense laws.
I happen to believe the "right to bear arms" portion of the Second Amendment is inextricably linked to "well-regulated," which means there is a role for government in the debate. That role should not be onerous, but its mere presence should not produce clarion calls of paranoia that government is out to take away all guns. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. (http://start.westnet.ca/newstempch.php?article=terms.html/) It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/rc/1/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/rc/1/rc.htm)
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/rc/2/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/rc/2/rc.htm)
http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/rc/3/rc.img (http://rc.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/rc/3/rc.htm)
http://da.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/a2.img (http://da.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/a2.htm)
http://adchoice.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/ach.img (http://adchoice.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/ach.htm)http://pi.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/a2t.imghttp://pi2.feedsportal.com/r/247386004684/u/0/f/677045/c/35496/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/a2t2.imghttp://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677045/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/mf.gif
More... (http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/c/35496/f/677045/s/4c684b7c/sc/7/l/0L0Shuffingtonpost0N0Cbyron0Ewilliams0Cenforcing0E that0Ewell0Eregul0Ib0I8860A5180Bhtml/story01.htm)