The idea of gun control tends to scare many conservative folks, they want guns to protect themselves, and it is their second amendment right. The left says if there are less guns then there will be more safety for our children in schools, and conservative paranoia responds “what if someone else attacks me with a gun and I don’t have one?”
It’s a mistrust, a feeling of not being safe in one’s own country unless they have a gun on them. Guns make people feel powerful when they own them and uncomfortable or scared when they see someone else with one. The second amendment fully is the right to bear arms in order to form a militia, well that’s not why people own their guns, not to form a militia but to give themself a feeling of power and security.
Gun control is more about regulation, not about the government taking everyone’s guns. It’s about keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use guns to harm others. It doesn’t make sense to me, a liberal, why conservatives are so afraid of their own guns being taken away.
It’s quite telling I think, because if they did research and discovered that gun control doesn’t mean no guns, but safety measures to ensure the wrong people don’t have guns, they wouldn’t be so scared. However if they do know that, it begs the question, do conservatives think they are the wrong people? That they are mentally unstable enough to get their guns taken?
It’s kind of like sex education, or lack thereof, where in most states they just teach abstinence. Don’t want a baby or std’s? Then don’t have sex. Well, teenagers are going to keep having sex no matter what, so we might as well educate them so they can be safe and avoid pregnancy and STD’s. As a liberal I think the safest way to live with guns is for there to be no guns, but I know that’s an unrealistic want, so I might as well support the regulations and learn more about them, that way I can avoid states with loose regulations and hopefully be safe.
Most legislatures are in the middle, making some progress for the liberals, but not enough of a leap to anger the conservatives. Like in Washington, they passed HB 1240 banning various semi automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns with certain features. It prohibits the sales, distribution, and manufacturing of new semi automatic guns, but folks in Washington who already own that type of gun are allowed to keep them. How is the government taking away your guns? In Arkansas as long as you aren’t a felon, you can carry without a permit. In North Carolina you no longer need a permit to carry a hand gun, which seems like a law to make only the conservatives happy.
Now let’s talk the most recent gun control activity, United States vs. Rahimi. This case started with an incident involving a Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, who was under a civil protective order for allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend. Despite the restraining order, Rahimi was found in possession of firearms, leading to his indictment under the federal ban. This seems like the audacity of a man, ignoring the law’s placed upon him because he doesn’t like it. Unfortunately, all citizens must obey the law, not pick and choose.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ban was unconstitutional based on the Second Amendment, stating that such a restriction was not aligned with historical precedents. The U.S. Department of Justice appealed the Fifth Circuit’s decision, bringing the case before the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Solicitor General defended the ban, arguing that there is a historical precedent for disarming individuals deemed dangerous by society, which includes those under domestic violence restraining orders. The case will test the limits of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which ruled that gun restrictions must align with historical traditions to be constitutional. And as well all know historical traditions give the right to bear arms to form a militia.
But not to harm others in a non military way. Yes, Rahimi did not attack his ex-girlfriend with said firearm, but he would be allowed to have the firearm if he was not under the protective restraining order. Also, it’s difficult to get a judge to place a restraining order so there had to be good reason and evidence to back it up. Even though Rahimi ignored the law, the folks involved in enforcing it take it very seriously.
So, gun control, not a gun ban. Maybe now some conservatives will realise they don’t need to fear change or their guns being taken, because it’s not about that. It’s about keeping Americans safe from those deemed dangerous and ensuring those with guns get them the right way.
