Gun Control & the 2nd Amendment

            Our Founding Fathers set up this country to be the greatest country in the world. Looking at how far we’ve come, it’d be hard to argue these men did a poor job in laying our country’s foundation. However, time has passed since the Constitution was written, and with time comes change. An amendment which sat near and dear to the hearts of many citizens during the early days of America is our right to bear arms; so much so this right is the second section to our Bill of Rights. After events like the recent movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado I can’t help but wonder if this amendment is a little outdated. The reasoning behind the 2^nd Amendment was to prevent the U.S. from becoming a dictatorship and to not allow totalitarian power into the country. Those writing the Constitution wanted to give as much power to the people as possible, as we feared we could someday slip back into a governmental rule similar to what we dealt with under the British. Seeing how much has changed from then to now, how important is it to still have an amendment which makes sure our citizens are able to be armed? If the government does something we disapprove of, it seems old-fashioned to say we will physically fight back using weapons.

            The shootings at Columbine high school, at Virginia Tech, in Tucson Arizona, and now in Aurora Colorado, were all accomplished using weapons which had been legally purchased. This begs the question, should we do something about our gun laws in this country? The 2^nd Amendment says the government should not “infringe” on people’s right to have firearms, as “a well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State.” It doesn’t appear any of these massacres were completed by individuals who had any intention of being part of the militia. As long as we as citizens can bear some sort of arms then our government isn’t exactly “infringing” on this right. We have restrictions when it comes to drugs, voting, running for office, and drinking alcoholic beverages in this country – why can’t we draw a line and put in place stricter regulations when it comes to the buying, possessing, and using firearms?

            Hand guns and rifles can be used for recreational sporting and hunting purposes, and often make individuals feel safer and more protected. Assault weapons on the other hand have no purpose other than to kill. There is no reason why a regular citizen needs to own an automatic or semiautomatic gun. These types of assault weapons are really made for professional use only. This includes military, and perhaps some police enforcement. It can be argued if more people are armed perhaps we will be able to stop crazy people who plan and perform such awful events like the shooting which took place this past weekend in Aurora. But would we actually be safer if more people are armed, or would we be better off if less people owned and carried around weapons? In hindsight, letting the Brady Bill lapse and expire in 2004 probably wasn’t the best decision. Yes, if someone really wants to obtain a gun he will find a way to do so, whether it’s illegal or not. But this does not mean we cannot, or should not make it harder for these people to get their hands on such weapons.

           New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg recently called upon President Obama and Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney to talk about gun control. Neither candidate has taken a stance on how they feel about the 2^nd Amendment, as this would be political suicide given the extremely polarized feelings this topic seems to cause. People around the world tend to view America as being fairly gun-obsessed since it is illegal to own such weapons in many other countries. However, since we do have the right to bear arms, as noted in the Constitution, it makes sense we as citizens wouldn’t want that right to be taken away: if the government takes away one of our rights, it sets a precedent that it is alright to take ways other rights/freedoms in the future. Therefore, the 2^nd Amendment may never be abolished, and given how well Prohibition worked out the chances of successfully abolishing the 2^nd Amendment are slim thanks to underground markets. Regulation of the 2^nd Amendment may however be necessary.

            Regulations such as requiring gun owners to purchase insurance for their weapon(s), similar to how we are required to purchase insurance in order to drive vehicles, might be a step in the right direction. Another type of regulation which may lower the changes of shooting tragedies becoming realities would be to require those with guns to take classes in order to gain the proper education needed prior to owning and operating such weapons. We can also regulate gun control by requiring individuals to pass psychological exams to make sure weapons aren’t being put in the hands of people with unsound minds, or by establishing a follow-up program to keep better and more up-to-date tabs on gun owners. Making it illegal to purchase and own automatic and semiautomatic assault weapons in this country, unless for military purposes, might not be a bad idea either. Let’s be honest: what reason, other than the intention to kill, is there for average citizenry to need possession of such weapons? Sure, any changes to the 2^nd Amendment or any added gun regulations may not be instated right away. Mayor Bloomberg seems to have hit the nail on the head with this one though – there’s no harm in starting up conversation about gun control both inside and outside Congress.

Campaign Cash

            The campaign trail is a battle field – a battle for cash that is! Until Election Day when those at the forefront of the political race hope they’ve done enough wining and dining to get our votes, the drawn-out battle is focused on more than just candidates shaking hands and kissing babies. Like all marketing strategies, a political campaign needs the right fuel to keep the machine running. This particular fuel is green, and comes in the form of good-old American cash; personal checks, money orders and Super PAC donations are also acceptable, in case you were worried. Regardless of what form the money is in when it is donated, it is undeniable that money speaks volumes, especially when it comes to the presidential race. If money is any estimate as to how people feel, it has recently been telling us pretty loud and clear that Mitt Romney and the Republican Party is wanted by the American people. Politicians who change their views are often labeled as being flip-flippers. Well, it looks like the donors are the flip-floppers in this case, as a large number of donors have flip-flopped over the last four years. Back in 2008 many traditionally right-winged Wall Street-ers and Republicans joined President Obama’s bandwagon for ‘Change.’  The change these people were looking for appears to have never come through, as these folks have once again switched sides. Romney and The Republican National Committee have outraised Obama for the second month in a row. Team Romney has recently raised the stakes bringing in a whopping $106 million during the month of June compared to Team Obama’s $71 million. The power to bring in the big bucks from the once money magnet man Obama seems to be slipping as his cult of personality is taking a hit to the promises of deregulation and tax cuts by the GOP nominee.

            However, the battle for cash isn’t an easy battle to win. Obama’s campaign strategy has largely been fueled by smaller donations with a grassroots-like support system. Though Romney was getting by with supporters giving the maximum amount they could, it appears this Republican is starting to cash in from smaller donations as well, an area where Obama has led the race from the beginning. The Democrats recently took to social media outlets like Facebook asking followers to “help close the gap by chipping in $3 now,” stating the Obama Campaign and Associated Committees are “building our campaign the right way – with small donations from grassroots supporters like you.” Regardless if the money comes from Average Joes or five-figure check-writing millionaires, money plays a large part in who comes out on top. Who says money can’t win you the race? Just ask New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg what it took to be elected in the five boroughs. Whether it is because of flip-flopping donors or the fact that Romney is a wealthier man than Mr. Obama, it is clear money is now pouring in at a much faster rate into the Romney Campaign. Even Obama, who has been noted by some to be the greatest fundraiser in political history, may find himself defeated in this battle for campaign cash. Perhaps Obama’s presidential honeymoon stage is coming to an end and his divorce from the Oval Office is unfolding before our eyes. We may not know until November if this is what is actually happening, but it looks like the American people are speaking and numbers don’t tend to lie.