Gun Control

Firstly I will be addressing the legality of gun control and the logic and meaning behind the text of the second amendment of the US constitution. The second amendment states, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " Many interpret this text to mean that it is an inalienable right for every individual to own a firearm. This is incorrect, the second amendment gives people the right to collective security and the right to form state militias. This right is exercised through the National Guard in each of the fifty states, which serves to counter federal military power and to protect the citizenry from tyranny. [1] This is why it is constitutional for counties and states to enact gun control legislation, because it is the duty of the state governments to organize and carry out the collective security of the people. Individuals cannot afford the ordinance, supplies, and defensive systems that are required for a practical and pragmatic defense against a tyrannical federal government or foreign army. Thus, we must consider the spirit of the second amendment and what it means, as well as how it applies to modern society. Does every individual need a weapon when the needs of collective security are already met? The answer to that question is no, because not only is there no point in it, but a heavily armed citizenry can actually be a detriment to the public health and collective security of the states. An armed citizenry with access to military grade weapons would be capable of forming paramilitary groups, which if left unchecked could substitute civil discourse with forceful discourse to influence the government and terrorize the populace. Of course we do not interpret the constitution to allow for independent militias to form on our soil, we recognize that it would be disastrous to interpret the constitution in such a way. Unfortunately that same argument in regards to arming citizens is ignored. Some political parties and advocacy groups assert that it is the right of every citizen to own a firearm, because they choose to interpret the constitution in the same literal sense that we as a nation recognize to be absurd in relation to the right to form militias. In lieu of the fact that personally bearing arms meant for the contribution of the collective security of society is impractical and dangerous to the public health, we can agree that ownership of a weapon for this reason is not legitimate and that we should work against the proliferation of firearms in society. Not only do we need more gun control to achieve this goal, but we need a national plan that supersedes any local legislation. We must recognize on a national level and codify it into law that there are only three legitimate reasons for personal firearm ownership. 1)Personal Defense. 2)Hunting. 3)Competitive shooting and similar gun based sports. By recognizing the legitimate reasons for personal firearm ownership we can limit the types of weapons that people can own to two categories; handguns with magazines not in excess of 10 rounds for self-defense, and hunting rifles and non-combat shotguns for hunting. With legislative recognition of legitimate civilian firearms, we can rule out the legality of certain weapons, such as assault rifles. Successful gun control will require a national plan and initiative, because of the nature in which illegal guns are obtained. For the purpose of this debate we will recognize an illegal weapon as the following; a class of weapon outlawed by legislation in the district that it resides in, or an unregistered or stolen registered weapon. Criminals are able to obtain illegal weapons despite gun control laws, because they can easily purchase these weapons in states or counties with lax gun control legislation and bring them into the cities, where gun control is stricter. Criminals will often simply buy guns from gun shows held outside the cities with tight gun control legislation, or buy guns illegally from gun dealers with federal firearms licenses. By making it harder for firearms to be purchased on a national level, and by removing firearms from the market by buying them back from the populace, we can drive up the cost for illegal firearms and eventually make them unaffordable to the average criminal. [2] Furthermore, we should increase the size and funding of the ATF. The ATF is responsible for enforcing federal gun laws, yet it only has 1,800 agents to monitor an estimated 77,000 gun dealers. Currently it would take 22 years for the ATF to inspect every federally licensed gun dealer. There is a very clear problem here, when the organization tasked with monitoring this form of commerce is woefully undermanned and underfunded. [3] The most important thing is to have a national gun control plan and to enforce it. Attempts to institute meaningful gun control have been undermined by governmental incompetence, and the giving in to gun lobbyists. With a strong ATF and a national policy leaning toward gun control, we can finally bring gun violence down to an acceptable level. I thank my opponent, and look forward to his rebuttal. [1] . http://www.law.cornell.edu... [2]. http://www.nytimes.com... [3] . http://gunvictimsaction.org...