On my first topic of politics I wanted to incorporate a debate that has been on the hot seat for many years now, one of the most heated political controversies that just seems to not want to be resolved. The Gun Debate. This heated conflict has spread throughout the country, with polar opinions on both political parties. The
article that I have chosen to read on gun control stresses the high disagreement between parties. The republican view on this topic is that there should be lesser laws on gun control and no background checks for private gun sales. On the other hand, democrats are in support of stronger gun laws that make purchasing guns more difficult. In the article, both parties are taking steps to advocate their different points of view, and to make sure their voices are heard. An example of such took place in Washington State where pro gun control supporters gathered 225,000 signatures that could win a vote which would mandate background checks for private gun sales. Conversely, those in support of the second amendment created groups and campaigns that would fight government involvement in gun sales. However, after the tragic shooting that took place in Newtown Connecticut, gun control supporters are showing their top game in order to pass a bill that could increase gun restrictions. Years before the event, gun control supporters were fighting for a far off goal, but since the shooting they have recharged their opinions and regained their passion for fighting. After the shooting, evident changes were made in the states of Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, and New York that allowed thorough background checks when applying for a gun. In other states, changes in gun legislation were made restricting gun possession of the mentally ill. However, these changes were moderate at best, leaving the nation split. It seems like when one party takes one step, the other makes a point to go two steps further.
Why is it that this is a continual debate that never ceases to become resolved? Why are these two parties so stubborn in their opinions that they can't compromise? Through a sociological perspective the answer lies in our past. If we look prior to the American Revolution we can see how the oppression presented through the government of a British monarchy lead to the amendment of the right to bear arms. Unfair taxation and monopolies consumed the colonists. Because of this difference in power between the colonists and Great Britain, the ultimate quest was to make sure that most citizens held inalienable rights that would allow them to act freely. After the American Revolution the people wanted to create a fair and balanced government, thus, drafting the Constitution and later adding the Bill of Rights. In the Bill of Rights they put in one of the most controversial amendments. The colonists added the second amendment, the right to bear arms, because of their lack of protection previous to the revolution. The British government took away the colonists rights to bear arms, because they didn't want an uprising to occur. Therefore, in our Bill of Rights, the right to own a gun was included because not only were our rights to own a gun previously striped, but at the time there was no police department to protect the colonists against crime. There was no other form of protection, besides allowing citizens to own guns. In the 238 years since the revolution we have gained a stronger army, a police force, and many other forms of protection. Thus, the question of why people still need to hold the possession of a gun is debated. Our own history is what led to the reoccurring debate on gun control, which makes it difficult to balance the individual rights to bear arms versus protecting the public.
