With the gun control debate in Congress rattling on without any progress since the Sandy Hook shooting, states have begun taking matters into their own hands.
Connecticut became the third state to pass gun-control laws since the December massacre when Governor Malloy signed a new package of gun laws, which some are calling the strongest gun legislation in the country.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve scrolled through my Facebook newsfeed and stumbled upon a meme shared from some NRA or pro-gun rights group that went something along the lines of, “Oh, if guns were illegal no one would have one? Please tell me more about how criminals follow the law.” Propaganda like this holds no weight and is, in my opinion, one of the most idiotic arguments someone could make against gun control.
Who is trying to ban all guns? Though a small percentage of anti-gun radicals hope to ban and confiscate all guns, that’s not what’s going on here. Gun control legislation is not intended to take down the Second Amendment and create a gun-free world. Guns are inevitable; the goal is simply to make our gun-infested society safer and limit the extent of the damage mass murderers can inflict in a matter of seconds.
The NRA claims to be committed to “preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals to purchase, process, and use firearms for legitimate purposes.” If the NRA believes in guns for all law-abiding citizens, why oppose background checks? Further, what does the NRA consider a “legitimate purpose”? We don’t live in an action film in which we are fighting off dozens of villains in a back alley. What, then, is the purpose of protecting the right to own weapons capable of doing just that?
President Obama weighed in, saying, “There doesn’t have to be a conflict between protecting our citizens and protecting our Second Amendment rights.” The Second Amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms, but there are restrictions to these broad fundamental rights. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech, but even that has its limitations. We can’t yell “fire” in a crowded movie theater, nor can we use words to incite immediate violence. Libel, slander and obscenity are not protected under freedom of speech. Unfortunately for conservatives, regulating the Second Amendment by defining exactly what arms we can bear and restricting the right from criminals is no less constitutional.
Do the people who make the argument about “criminals not following the law” believe that because criminals don’t follow laws, we should not have laws? Last I checked murder was illegal, but criminals don’t follow the laws, so what’s the point? Same story with rape. This argument makes no logical sense to me no matter how it’s put. I fail to see why anyone would want to refrain from making a law because criminals won’t follow it. One round in the hand of a dangerous person is too many, so let’s make sure no dangerous person gets any.
Connecticut legislators should serve as an example to their fellow politicians in Washington. Since the Sandy Hook shooting, the NRA’s popularity has fallen, and since they’ve kept busy targeting the Obama children and suggesting we arm school teachers, I can’t imagine why. Nationwide polls show overwhelming support for new regulation, but even with clear signs of the public moving away from the NRA, the organization continues to place guns before people, thus moving farther and farther from the American public.