Gun Debate Turns into a Constitutional Issue

Gun laws have become an extremely controversial issue this year. Recently, Congress has gathered together to discuss the constitutionality of various proposals now being brought up, including the reinstatement of an assault weapons ban. Suggestions that limit gun usage and purchasing have strong support among the American public. A majority of American citizens feel like having a plan that involves universal background checks for gun sales is great. Restrictions like limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines is also something that people seem to agree on because it is clearly consistent with the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Even though restrictions on gun laws would be a wise decision, some people agree for the wrong reasons. They think that crime rates go up simply because there are too many loopholes that result in gun laws being ineffective. For these people, the best way to decrease crime rates is to simply work on gun control as a whole in society.

Although, contrary to these facts, some people argue that the focus shouldn’t be on the guns being used, but that it should be on the criminals that are purchasing the guns. It should be aimed toward restricting gun control for those who are specifically unfit to be in possession of a weapon. Is it the gun that’s dangerous or is it the person holding the gun that uses it in an immature and irresponsible manner? Another thing to think about is the fact that power is a very dangerous thing that could quickly get out of hand. Once restrictions are in place, they tend to grow and expand in power over time as politicians seek favor by “making things safer”. In their initial form they may just be able to deny people based on public criminal records, but there really isn’t much to stop them from going beyond that. The 9th Amendment of the Constitution states that “the enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed to deny or disparged others retained by the people. The right to dear arms is an inviolable personal right. Citizens deserve to have ownership of guns in order to protect themselves if necessary. Criminals will always figure out a way to have ownership of a weapon whether the law is restricting them from getting one or not. So, limiting and restricting access to weapons is not progressing the situation in a positive direction at all, and it’s not going to solve any problems related to crime rates.

Advertisements

Constitutional Amendment Banning Gay Marriage

Image

Representative Tim Huelskamp introduced legislation to go forth and put some changes to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage. It is still hard to tell if the House Representative leaders, Republican sponsors or cosponsors are putting any support behind this suggestion. The bill that Huelskamp is trying to push offers lawmakers who are against gay marriage to openly express their views on the subject. The bill states that “this Constitution … shall not be constructed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.”

Those who are against gay marriage would argue that gay marriage is not supported by religion. They think it is “harmful” because it violates natural law. It may deny a child of either a father or a mother, it validates and promotes the homosexual life style, it may even turn a moral wrong into a civil right. Other views on this controversy say that it defeats the states purpose of benefiting marriage, and it could be the cutting edge of the sexual revolution. But those who simply want to marry the person they love are having their constitutional rights abused.

It is a violation of religious freedom. It is a form of minority discrimination. Laws that prohibit homosexual marriage are unconstitutional because the Constitution protects privacy. If it protects privacy, shouldn’t it protect-if anything-consensual sex in a private room? What legitimate reason does a state have in preventing two people who are happily in love from spending the rest of their lives together? When these people are married and 80 years old, is their relationship really going to have effected the lives of those who opposed of it? These people who oppose will look back at these arguments against same sex marriages and see, just like he ban on interracial marriages, that they are backed by nothing more than insecurities, fear and prejudice.  If two people want to be in a relationship, it is nobody’s business but their own. There isn’t really any sort of line between marriage between two men or women, and marriage between a man and a woman. Marriage is the ultimate expression of love. They both want to spend the rest of their lives with each other, and they both want to make each other happy. That doesn’t sound like a sin to me.