I recently read an editorial about gun rights in the Washington Post and wanted to bring some attention to the matter because it is referring to the second amendment. This has also been a very debated topic over the past few years. In 2007, the U.S Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit looked over the District’s gun regulations. The court struck down this handgun ban as unconstitutional and made it required that other guns in homes “be kept unloaded and secured with trigger locks at all times.” Last week, the issue was reviewed again and two of the judges gave some pretty surprising input. “Chief Judge Douglas Henderson upheld the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” The editorial board seemed pleased by this decision because of its methodology.
I too find this conclusion to be very necessary because the severity that gun’s have on the world at the moment. For decades, the arms race has been a primary objective for many nations. Many people are unaware that weapons manufacturing and dealing is actually one of Americas strongest and most consistent sources of income. Now this isn’t unnecessary by any means, thought because weapons are mass produced, it is becoming easier and easier for the public to acquire assault and rapid fire guns. The very objects that were designed to protect its people are now being used by its own citizens. This is why gun rights could undergo such a change.
Much has changed since the constitution was first written. As we have witnessed the world take tremendous leaps in technology, weapons technology has also drastically changed. Gun registration, the judges ruled, is “deeply enough rooted in our history to support the presumption” that it is constitutional. The ban on semiautomatic long guns is permissible, they concluded, because it does not prohibit possession of “the quintessential self-defense weapon” — the handgun. However, fully automatic guns “pose a danger to innocent people and particularly to police officers.”
Because I live in Texas, I do agree that people should have the right to bear arms, but these rights should be modified. The reason that the editorial board found the judges’ conclusion acceptable is because they protected the 2nd amendment but also supported the reasoning behind the ban because of the weaponry that many Americans have in their possession. It is reasonable to have a semi-auto rifle or pistol, but it can be dangerous to carry a modified one or automatic gun. The fact that many guns can be concealed patronizes others, especially law enforcement. Removing gun rights from the constitutional is unacceptable but making slight changes to gun rights is more than acceptable.
No comments:
Post a Comment