Yes

Patrick Rettig

The United States has always been a nation based on a certain number of unalienable Rights. My favorite is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But our rights are literally being held at gunpoint by the Republican Party and the National Rifle Association.

They wish to preserve the Second Amendment with no restrictions so we can have “liberty.”

But it is hard to put one’s “liberty” to use when the country is full of criminals, terrorists and militias of “patriots” wielding whatever weapons of death and chaos they so wish.

Liberty is of no use to the dead.

Should we take away all firearms and repeal the Second Amendment?

Absolutely not.

What this country does need are common sense reforms made not to suppress the rights of law-abiding citizens but to rather protect lives from those who would abuse their Second Amendment rights.

President Obama’s recent executive action on Gun Control is a step in the right direction.

The executive order closes the loopholes in our broken background check system by requiring all gun dealers to complete background checks to whomever they sell.

Some may argue that it is not the guns that kill people, but it is the people who kill people.

That would be true if our nation had a mass strangulation problem.

In reality, the majority of homicides are executed by drive-bys and mass shootings.

The people who kill people are using guns. It’s not that guns kill people, it’s that people kill people with guns.

So where does the problem lie: in the guns or in the people?

The answer is both.

There are people in this nation who should never have access to firearms.

And there are certain types of firearms that should never be accessible to people.

Some people believe that simply improving the mental health care system will help curb gun violence, which is true.

But that is only half the battle.

Getting the mentally ill improved treatments and efficient diagnosis earlier without strengthening current gun laws is like riding a bike using only one leg.

It does not really work.

It is not a radical idea to think that people who are violent or have mental illnesses should not be able to acquire firearms.     The way to do this is by first improving the background check system to better identify those with mental health issues, criminal history, or terrorist sympathies.  Secondly, we should make it impossible for regular civilians to acquire dangerous firearms like assault-style rifles with high capacity magazines and suppressed handguns.

There is no practical reason for a person to need a military or police grade firearm. People may exclaim “home defense,” but anyone who needs an AR-15 with 30 rounds in the magazine for “home defense” needs to either take some shooting lessons or move out of Mogadishu.

Sometimes constitutional rights must be curbed for the sake of an evolving society.

Are the rights of the victims of the Charleston church shootings to freely and safely practice religion really less important than the rights of racist domestic terrorist Dylan Roof to bear arms?

The leaders of our country have a thin line to straddle balancing personal liberty with public safety.

One thing is for certain we must make sacrifices in order to remain free.

Gun control is relevant.

No one can enjoy the freedom of their nation if they are too afraid of gun violence to be free.

No

Noah Thompson

Recently, Barack Obama decided to use his executive powers to increase gun control background checks.

Here’s the bottom line.

Guns are a both a blessing and a curse. They have defended, but also massacred the innocent. But they are a privilege to Americans, as they always should be.

Placing huge restrictions on guns will by no means reduce mass killings.

For example, just three months ago, four people were brutally stabbed at a California campus by a student with a hunting knife. The only guns involved were that of the police, who shot the assailant.

What stops criminals from constructing makeshift explosives or any other type of lethal device? There’s nothing stopping them from purchasing firearms illegally, even if stricter gun control laws are passed.

Obama has a crazed notion that increasing background checks will somehow end mass shootings. The problem is criminals don’t follow the law. His executive actions will only make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to have access to weapons.

Under the current law, anyone who makes a living off of buying and selling guns is required to own a federal license. But anyone who occasionally purchases or sells guns for “the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms” is exempt, according to the ATF.

Basically, anyone who wants to sell a gun will have to wait around two months to endure the application process. Sounds a little outrageous, no?

Obama thinks that by waving his magic wand of gun control, mass shootings such as the terrorist assault in San Bernardino will cease. But the weapons owned by the terrorists in the attack were legally purchased after  the suspects underwent the required background checks.

What Obama also doesn’t realize is there have also been thousands of cases where citizens have saved lives, including their own, with a concealed weapon.

Another argument from the left is that people don’t need heavy-duty weaponry, such as an AR-15. The problem is- who are they to tell us what weapons we can own? It is not their place, and certainly not the government’s, to tell citizens how to live our lives.

But on the other hand, many of those deemed mentally unstable have been able to access firearms. As a result, people have been killed.

So what is the solution?

The solution is to place stronger enforcement behind the laws already enacted, not to pass new ones. Laws have been passed that prevent the mentally ill from owning guns, but many are able to obtain them anyway.

Well, what does enforcement entail?

It means forcing federal prosecutors to pursue straw purchases, where someone purchases a gun on the behalf of an individual who wouldn’t normally be able to buy a gun, which represents a huge proportion of guns used in crime.

It also means increasing prosecution of gun related crimes, which has declined 40 percent since Obama took office.

With stricter enforcement, both sides can be satisfied. Those who shouldn’t have guns won’t have them, and those who can will be able to keep and purchase them easily and legally.

What we need to realize is that guns are tools. Just like a wrench or a hammer, they are used to achieve a purpose.

For law-abiding citizens, it is to protect themselves, their family, and their property.

For criminals, it is to harm. And they can be stopped.

But stricter gun control is not the answer.