Where to Start?

As elections come and go one topic has remained at the center of each debate, where does the candidate stand on the Second Amendment? This question has only recently become so popular due to recent shooting throughout the United States and thus has forced politicians and people to take a stand on one side or another. This raises the question, what should be done about the current regulation of firearms in the United States?

The Beginning

To start understanding where the candidates and the people stand we must first lay a foundation of both the Second Amendment along with where the question of current firearm policies are coming from. The Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791, which granted protection to the people from the federal government. The Second Amendment, one of the most well known and shortest, granted the people the right to bear arms. The purpose of this Amendment was so the people could defend themselves (Regulated Militia) from not only others but also from the government .

Now that times have changed and we as a society has modernized, the right to bear arms has been questioned. To be more specific what can and cannot be allowed to the general population? Post Sandy Hook brought widespread attention to the firearms community and that brings us to today’s gun politics.

Current Candidates’ Stances

When the debates between Trump and Clinton started, they each had very strong opinions on what should be done about the current situation of shoots and use of firearms among the general civilian population. Trump for example is very pro-gun; he made a comment telling Hillary to “De-arm” her guards if she is so anti-second amendment. This may be a very unreasonable request, but his statement shows both their stances. Trump is radically pro-gun ownership while Clinton was originally anti-gun, until recently.

Clinton, in the most recent and last debate of the season, discussed how she believes Americans should be able to legally own firearms. When recently questioned about her stricter stance in New York and how that would affect the country she stated, “I think it’s important localities make their own decision based on their situation” (FreeBeacon). This statement shows she is trying to appeal to those who own guns but might not like Trump and a statement like this would definitely bring in any voters who haven’t made a decision yet.

At the same time, Clinton shows she is still in favor of stronger control, which was demonstrated at the most recent debate. At one point she pointed out that 33,000 Americans are killed each year by guns which, according to politifact, is technically true and not true at the same time. Yes, 33,000 are killed, but she is pulling in all firearm related deaths including suicides. Only 12,000 are actually killed by someone else according to the CDC as of 2014.

What does this split Clinton mean for the people? Well if we look at the Democrats platform, which can be viewed here, we can see they favor more intervention and an increase in gun control and her original stance is stricter control but her sudden change to be more specific on where she wants to implement more control could be true or completely false. At that point, it’s up to the people to make an educated decision on what they want to see.

Trump is much the opposite, but just like Clinton, he matches his party’s platform, to an extent. With more and more people pulling away from Trump due to his antics on stage and his more extreme views, people started to pull away and no longer believe his statements.

Individuals and Their States

There is also more than just the two big candidates though. As Clinton stated, it’ll be up to individual states on what they want to enforce and that is what’s happening now. USA Today recently reported four states that will be imposing new regulations and bans. Some that are newer than others in terms relevance. An example is that not all states enforce background checks as much as others. Some states already have thorough checks and are now imposing bans on high capacity magazines which is any magazine over ten rounds.

The best way to deal with the current problems with firearms is to educate the public on their options and accurate facts. Some places really do need stricter control and higher penalties and it should be left up to the localities. Backgrounds also need to be enforced to the fullest and should be universal. Even with checks and balances it’s up to the people to decide what’s best for them and they just need to go out and vote on what actions they want to see.

The People

At this time, it’s up to the people. Those who are anti-gun have their reasons, just like those who are progun. Stronger restrictions might bring less harm to others, but at the same time, how far will it be taken? If we restrict the Second Amendment to the point of irrelevancy, what’s the point of having the Amendment? The biggest issue in today’s age is that there is no middle ground.  Upvote and downvote culture has reduced arguments, such as gun rights, to either overly enthusiastic support for ownership or enthusiastic support to reduce ownership. This disagreement brings crowds of online discussions where either everyone writes a misspelled mess of a manifesto or puts on caps lock so every knows how hard they are punching the keys. (Mr.R)

Because of all the chaos (either it’s all okay or none of it is), we must look between the margins, look for respectable criticism of current gun related politics and draw up proper and just regulations, which will be difficult. Everyone must also know what’s at stake, and that is the Bill of Rights. If we start to tread on one amendment, what will stop other groups from restricting other amendments to nothing? That’s what Americans of all walks of life should be thinking about when they go to vote and voice their opinion. Think about what could happen if no fair middle ground is found and justified.