The Supreme Court is going to hear District of Columbia v. Heller. In March, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned the ban on handguns in D.C., declaring the law unconstitutional. What is at stake is the interpretation of the Second Amendment, the right of individuals to bear arms.
I think this is an easy call. This is a clear case that it is so much easier for politicians to pass a law on paper and say that made things safer than to actually do the hard thing and tell voters that money has to come from somewhere to increase the manpower and abilities of law enforcement as well as over -hauling the corrections system of the country to actually rehabilitate those that can be and incarcerating those that cannot and executing the most heinous criminals in our midst. The Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. And this right is guaranteed for a very good reason, to protect the citizens of the country from the threat of a tyrannical government. Now there is an argument that we do not need that right anymore, but if we give up that right then which right should we give up next?
And the idea that we should limit the number and type of firearms that people have is also something that I am against. Again if we start limiting who can have what firearm then where do we draw the line? I have a very hard time with anything that infringes on individual rights. I do not believe in limiting freedom of speech or religion, even when I think that people abuse those rights. I do not believe in infringing on the protection of the 4th amendment against illegal search and seizures, not even in the wake of 9/11 and the GWOT. The thing that makes America great is our individual freedoms.
In regard to the argument about the 2nd Amendment, here is my stance---it is our right to own weapons so that if the need arises we are duty bound to act responsibly as citizens of this great nation and rise up against the tyrannical government and reestablish the government for the people by the people and of the people. If limits are placed on who can own what weapons and how many and when and where then we are shrugging our responsibility as citizens of this country to stand guard against any injustice committed against any individual of this country by the government or agents of the government. If we allow the slow methodical disarming of our citizens then there will be nothing to stand against unjust actions of the government. Yes the pen can be mightier than the sword, however sometimes you have to use the sword to back up the pen.
Now there is an argument that we need gun control/bans to prevent murder. No, if someone is going to commit murder than they are not concerned about obeying the law. And no matter what bans you put on firearms there will always be a black market that will provide the supply of weapons that are needed by criminals. Banning weapons does not significantly reduce the number of murders and violent crimes. The basic reason is that criminals are just that criminals and do not obey laws so all that such laws do is impose undue hardship on the law abiding citizens of our country.
If we are truly interested in making our streets safer from violent crimes then we need to start at ground level. The leaders of communities need to promote community involvement and awareness. And when a crime is committed anyone that has any information should come forward and help law enforcement bring those persons responsible to the courts. To ensure that law enforcement is capable of this, we need to make sure that we have the best law enforcement officers at every level. We need to make sure that they are the best trained and equipped and that they perform their jobs above reproach. They need to be compensated to the standard that we wish to achieve in their performance. At the level of the courts we need to push to have plea bargains taken off the table for repeat offenders. We need to see that the judges sentence each person convicted based on their expertise to what will provide the best chance of reformation for the individual without placing undue risk on the community. We need to have the resources to rehabilitate those persons that can be and provide them with the means to lead productive lives when returned to society instead of booting them out the gates of prisons with $24 and no where to go and no one to lean on. The judges also need to place those individuals that present as career criminals in prison for the duration of their lives, and those most heinous of criminals need to be executed.
In the corrections system we need to revamp the system from top to bottom. In the juvenile arena we need to demand that those detained are educated and mentored. We need to work with schools and business to provide futures for these minors before they are lost. We need to make sure that they have a support system when they are released and that they are monitored. And there should be no negativity if these same individuals can be placed in the military services or the Peace Corps or job corps to help make the transition from child to adult. In my opinion these options should be used more to help get these minors on their feet. In the adult system, some of the same things need to be adopted. If someone comes into the system with an addiction then it needs to be treated. If they come in without an education they need to be educated. If they come in without a skill then they need to learn one. And again upon their release they need to be supported and monitored completely to insure that they don’t return to the penal system. It should also be part of the condition of their release that they give back to the community in some way. And as a society we need to allow the persons that are successful to be members of the community without any bias or discrimination.
No comments:
Post a Comment