Gun Law in the USA

In the wake of the Aurora, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania shootings in 2012, the debate over gun law in the USA has been sparked, and whether citizens of the USA should have a ‘right to bear arms’ as seen in the second amendment of the constitution.

President Barack Obama has made his stance for firmer gun control clear stating that there needs to be “change” and would he would “use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this”. Here is what he had to say:

The National Rifle Association (one of the largest pressure groups in the USA), however, is a keen supporter of guns. In a statement after the Newtown shootings the NRA stated that “the only thing that can stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun.” Their stance is that there should be armed guards in school as to protect them from ‘a bad person’. They went on to say that if Adam Lanza (the gunman in Newtown) had been confronted by armed guards then “it’s possible that 26 innocent lives might have been spared”.NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre had this to say:

In one supreme court case, District of Columbia vs Heller, the US Supreme Court found the second amendment to the US constitution protects an individual’s right to own guns for the purposes of self-defence. There seems to be little desire to amend the law…

What America should do is pass the Fix Gun Checks Act which would prevent the loophole that enables 40% of people to buy guns without passing a background check. This bill would also mean that states and the federal government would have to send all previous criminal records and mental illnesses to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. For America, getting rid of guns is a no go option, but there is most definitely room to address the deal and pass some form of gun control.

What are your views on the gun debate? Leave your comments below.

Thank you,

Digestible Politics

19 comments on “Gun Law in the USA

  1. cannabis89 says:

    Sadly, the law-abiding obey laws, but criminals do not, so new legislation is not likely going to make us safer. We need to better identify the mentally ill and enforce existing laws on misuse and irresponsible storage of guns.

    • Woody Bass says:

      Ahhh. But how many were law abiding before they were not? How many were insane, nutso, and plain crazy before we thought they were completely normal?

      Yes.. Criminal and pyscho checks should be done… But that is not enough. Never will be. We all have the same emotional capability and psychological probability to go nutso. Does that mean we will? No. But the problem is the guns themselves. They make it too easy to cause mass harm or worse.

      Also.. Do realize, in most states, you have to go through more to own and keep a car than you have to do with a firearm? You have to take a beginners drivers course, written test, prove you can drive on a obstacle course, take an eye examination before they hand you a license. Then every year your car has to pass emissions in order to get a new tag. This all for a contraption which was not designed specifically to cause harm or end life. With the exception of Texas… You basically have to only pass a criminal background check. Does that not seem a bit odd considering the firearms WERE specifically designed to bring harm or end a life?

  2. Schools and the like are chosen because the perpetrator knows there are no guns to confront him. If the schools have armed guards they will be less likely to be chosen as targets in the first place. If guns are controlled, it is only controlling responsible owners, criminals and the deranged will get them anyway.

    I believe that those calling for gun control are barking up the wrong tree, try calling for prescription antidepressant control.

    Obama supports gun control, but nothing to do with Sandy Hook, the government agenda is to remove guns to control (with guns) the population in the event of a civil uprising, which is highly on the cards given the current economic situation.


    • larrydunbar says:

      “Schools and the like are chosen because the perpetrator knows there are no guns to confront him.”

      I don’t buy that. If the schools have armed guards, then the perpetrator might have to find an easier target, but most likely he would only need to allow for the use of armed guards at schools. One shooter used a bomb as a decoy, so there are easy ways around the use of armed guards.

      As these attacks have seemed to be well planned, I don’t think either option (finding a new target or handling armed guards) is much of a deterrent for these shooters.

      I think more study, or the study has been done and we haven’t read about it for obvious reasons, on why schools are chosen before you can make a statement like you make at the beginning.

      I don’t think ignorance is helpful in this discussion.

    • Even if schools were chosen because there are no guns there doesn’t mean armed security is the solution. There will always be places which don’t have armed security that people can strike. There will always be weak spots. If you think we need more armed security at schools then we are going to need more armed security everywhere. But I doubt most people want to live in a police state where there is an armed guard on every corner in order to prevent mass shootings.

  3. Reblogged this on Peacewick and commented:
    Many people seem to take the view that “if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns.” I am by no means suggesting we should “outlaw guns” but I think we should do a heck of a lot more regulation, and I think it is quite a leap to say that a violent person who does not have easy access to a gun will seek out and make use of the black market in order to obtain one. Yes, I am sure that some violent gun-seekers would. I just don’t think many of them would. Just seems like we are talking about two fundamentally different types of criminal…

    • Depending on the circles you run in you may not have to look to find an illegal firearm. My best friend was a meth addict for a decade. I don’t know how many times his friends have offered to sell me a stolen gun. I never looked, I never wanted one but they would show up. My point being that you don’t necessarily have to go through a lot in order to acquire an illegal firearm.

  4. Donald Ross says:

    One line of thought is; Let the individual states deal with this weapons fixation by their citizens. Granted, if you dissect the Second Amendment there is a weasel clause for gun ownership, de facto unregulated arms … no controls.
    So, I hope President Obama stays out of this fray, because, when the chips are called in … it’s a state’s issue, not the Federal Government’s.
    If Connecticut, after the slaughter of their babies still want unrestricted gun rights, so be it. Sensible Americans, henceforth, should be well advised to avoid states … that by omission, allow the potential murder of innocents.

  5. Jack Wilmer says:

    It amazes me how Obama can take the constitution and completely push it out of his way.

  6. DaPoet says:

    Though a good idea the Fix Gun Checks Act would not have affected the shooter in the Aurora, Connecticut school shooting because the guns he used had been bought by and registered to his mother. Who then thought that it was a good idea to teach her mentally unstable son how to use them and paid with her life along with the lives of the others her son murdered. Nothing short of an outright firearms ban – not something that I would support – would have prevented him from using a gun during his rampage

  7. larrydunbar says:

    When the U.S. military occupied Iraq they didn’t take away the Iraqi’s guns. So if you believe your government is an occupying force, then owning or not owning guns is not really an issue. In fact the use of guns against our elected officials will only further isolate them from the public, and will only create the police state many gun owners fear.

    If you believe your gun will be a deterrent against your neighbors in some form of civil war, gun ownership in Iraq has also proven not as much of a deterrent against wholesale slaughter, as one would expect.

    To a certain extent, in Iraq It was the U.S. military isolating Sunni and Shia neighborhoods that stopped the killing enough so that boundary’s could be established and daily life go on.

    If you believe there is to be a civil war in the U.S.A, then I would suggest you form a militia, as the 2nd amendment talks about, and lock your weapon up with them, where it is only available to you as a part of a militia, and in the case of an armed attack.

    Otherwise, you only want the assault weapon to use for fun, and you risk having it taken away from you by someone who wants to use it for other things.

    I have nothing against having fun, and would love to own a full automatic weapon, but it appears that weapons for mass killings are not hard to get for people who want them. Therefore I suggest that the least we can do is make it harder for these people to get these kind of weapons, from me and you.

    These people that want to use our guns for other things could be our children or someone breaking into our houses.

    In both instances, a gun with just a few available rounds in a clip is plenty of protection (unless you are a total washout), and may help against the killing of a classroom full of children.

    To me, it is not so much the making of responsible gun owners (who could be a part of a militia) as placing these guns, able to kill many people in a short frame of time, out of our hands.

    Fun is fun, but it is out of control!

  8. dunlap777 says:

    I think we would be safer with less gun control and the school would be safe if teachers had guns.

  9. lsthurman says:

    The ban on the right to bare arms is a “Catch 22” being that war does much more damage then all these various random acts combined. Seriously anyone who so desire to bare arms within the bounds of the law has a right to bare arms but lets not be naive enough to think that “the criminally minded” start out that way…many of them also start out law abiding citizen who crack and unleash a world of chaos like a world-wind upon the innocent. Murder is wrong..why…it is in the ten commandments…Thou shall not kill…however if you have a tendency toward evolution as your moral foundation it is “survival of the fittest”….it is a wonder that this topic stirs up a tsunami of emotional thoughts…very curious what the outcome will be. After all any object can be picked up and used as an act of violence towards it the objects fault???? It is the individuals intentions with the object that make it deadly or not.

  10. Argus says:

    I think it’s a question of mindset.

    I dare say that other nations also have mass slaughters of innocents (nothing new there) but it always seems to be America.
    Hell, not so very long ago here in gun-free New Zealand we had one, Australia too, and the Brits. But for whatever reason the Swiss (despite their laws at the time requiring all households to store weapons and ammo) seem to have been spared—is it their laws or their mindset?

    Can it not be seen that it will get much worse in the US once all the ‘noble heroes’ get home from shooting up Iraq and Afghanistan and the other upcoming great American wars for ‘freedom’~?

    Watch this space …

  11. Argus says:

    You said “What America should do is pass the Fix Gun Checks Act which would prevent the loophole that enables 40% of people to buy guns without passing a background check …” Not good.

    The wording could be changed such that “Nobody not a card-carrying government agent could own a gun” and there you have it. Fully in compliance with the Constitution yet everyone defenseless as well (except, as pointed out in previous comments, ‘the criminal and/or the deranged’).

  12. drrik says:

    Every socialist country whose government had turned on and rounded up and/or killed its own people as a group, initially started with mandatory gun registration/background checks.

  13. drybredquips says:

    Thanks for liking “news media” and for following my blog. Hope other quips fit your interests and/or concerns. Best with your blog in 2013!

  14. jqpublius says:

    The US Federal Government has grown beyond its constitutional restraints. Unlike Great Britain which has an open constitution the United States has a written constitution. Therefore, our consitution serves more as a written contract or charter between the various states.

    I am uncomfortable with ceding any more sovereignty to that leviathan and the Obama administration, just as Great Britain should be wary of ceding its sovereignty to Brussels.

    I am a firm advocate of State’s Rights and our Federalist System. Therefore, I strongly support the Second Amendment and condemn King Obama’s attempt to infringe upon it.

    J.Q. Publius

    “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

    Benjamin Franklin,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s