Over the course of America’s history, gun ownership and arguably the motives for gun ownership have changed. The original pool of American gun owners consisted of men who sought to protect their communities, themselves and/or their families against the atrocities of war. Today, American gun owners possess firearms for protection, collection and recreation.
Efforts to trump an individual’s right to bear arms are unconstitutional, and a poor use of funding. The federal government does not seek to restrict access to consumer products such as alcohol or tobacco products (except for the sale of these products to minors). Interestingly enough, these consumer products are regulated by the same federal agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fire Arms and Explosives (ATF). The bureau never submits inquiries concerning the location of a consumer’s stash of Copenhagen snuff, or those bottles of Cîroc you stashed under your bed. As long as the acquisition of those products occurred via legal purchases with no intent of illegal distribution, the federal government has no concern for the location or use of them.
All too often, however, we have seen politicians take the podium after a major incident, and use that occurrence as leverage to push for “tougher legislation,” also known as their political agenda. Victims of gun violence should never be used as political pawns.
Lately, Washington has been calling for tougher legislation such as universal background checks and a national registry. The issue with a universal background check is that it extends the powers of the federal government into the personal promises of the Bill of Rights (the very ten amendments that were created to protect citizens from an oppressive government). Also, these background checks could be regarded as too stringent as many situations come with exceptions or special circumstances that can be difficult to explain or vouch for when dealing with federal paperwork.
It would be ignorant of me to suggest that all gun owners have submitted the proper paperwork and are responsible people.
With that being said, not all gun owners are criminals who illegally acquired their firearms with the intent to wreak havoc on their/our communities. All objects have a set purpose. It is strictly up to the individual to be responsible enough, and educated enough, about the object and its intended uses.
Moreover, this additional red tape extends the wait time for registrations and or the acquisition of the soul of the “issue,” the firearm. A national registry just seems silly. The idea of a government “for the people, by the people” suggesting that its citizens provide it with sensitive information such as the location of all of its firearms seems a little fishy.
The only time the federal government should be involved with tracing a fire arm is in the event of arms dealing, or if federal personnel are involved. Local governments and police departments should be left in charge regarding any incident that does not absolutely require the attention of the federal government.
Those who support the restriction of gun ownership usually wield gun violence statistics as support for their cause. Those numbers, however, do not suggest that the victims of senseless crimes, accidents and other gun related deaths supported gun control themselves. I say that while still holding respect for the victims not I, nor any stat wielding politician or supporter of gun control, has the right to speak for them. If statistics spoke for the level of freedom an individual should be afforded, well my friends, I do believe we would be in a bit of trouble. So long as this country is governed by the Constitution of the United States, our freedoms shall remain intact.
Brice Ashford is a junior marketing major from Ridgeland.
