iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Sanjay Sanghoee

GET UPDATES FROM Sanjay Sanghoee
 

Why Gun Control Is Patriotic

Posted: 07/22/2012 11:02 am

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado, it is time to take a long, hard look at the role of guns in our society. This is not about politics but about pure common sense.

Let's start with the simple facts: a gunman, who is most likely insane, went to the front of a packed movie theater during a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises and opened fire on the crowd with assault weapons. A dozen people died and dozens other were injured and probably traumatized for life. A disgusting act that has shocked the nation, but who is to blame for what happened?

The liberals would say that it is the NRA and the gun industry, who make it absurdly easy to secure assault weapons in the United States, including over the Internet. The conservatives in turn would say that it is not guns but people who do the killing. Literally speaking they are correct, but if the essence of what the conservatives claim is true, then the reason we have crazy massacres in this country is because Americans are a bunch of homicidal maniacs with no impulse control; and if that part is true, then should we really allow this same crackpot citizenry to carry firearms? You see the problem?

The Second Amendment of our Constitution was meant to protect us from harm, but had the Founding Fathers known back then that the proliferation of guns would put us in harm's way today, I bet you anything they would have put safeguards in place to prevent abuse. The right to defend oneself makes sense but that should not encompass the right to own weapons of mass destruction, or to endanger the welfare of society. The belief that we need to stockpile guns of every kind to protect us from our own government is a sign of deep paranoia and madness. And to the people who think that way, let me ask you this: do you really believe that if the U.S. government decided for some reason to direct all its military might against you , you would stand a chance against them?

One thing that I do agree with conservatives on is that violence does not stem from any one factor alone, including guns. People do kill people (even if the easy availability of guns facilitates and possibly encourages the violence), and often the reasons are mental or emotional. There is a strong culture of aggression developing in America today which is pretty psychotic. You can see it when you accidentally bump into a stranger on the street, you can see it on the highway when someone explodes in road rage, you can see it in a bar when knife-fights break out over the smallest things, you can see it on the Internet when people start attacking each other in profanity-ridden tirades, you can see it on television shows that glorify mobsters and biker gangs, you can certainly see it in our political landscape, and you can even see it in 8-year-olds who exhibit large amounts of "attitude." Something is very wrong here.

But whatever the contributing factors -- guns, mental health, the effect of media violence, or something else -- a nation of heavily armed citizens is definitely not the answer.

I know Americans (or least some of them) love their guns and I also understand that they like the idea of being able to keep a weapon for self-protection or hunting. And there is no doubt that the majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens. But once again, there is a huge difference between owning a single handgun to protect your home or a rifle to hunt and owning a dozen high-powered assault weapons with high-capacity clips. Those are guns used to kill large numbers of people in short periods of time, so what possible rationale is there for private citizens to own them? There is none, and the Second Amendment was not meant to justify such a thing. In fact, the NRA's support of this shows just how perverted they are and betrays their true agenda, which is to protect the sales of their financial patrons -- the gun manufacturers.

Sure, not every incident of violence can be averted and there are always unforeseen factors that play into these things, but when you see a pattern emerging, you cannot just stand back and do nothing. It is a fact that we have serious problems in our society, from mental illness and sociopathy to a violent culture, and those are all things that we need to address without delay, but when you combine those problems with weapons of mass murder, you get a lethal cocktail of destruction. Restricting the availability of guns will not alone get rid of mayhem, but it will at least give us some breathing room to address the root psychological causes of violence.

The deaths of innocent people should never be a political issue or even an ideological one, but it is a human issue and as such, demands our open-minded consideration of the factors that contribute to it -- even if the conclusions we reach challenge our personal beliefs and make us uncomfortable. Just because you believe in the right to bear arms does not mean that you have to follow the NRA's playbook or that you cannot support sensible gun laws. The Second Amendment was designed to ensure our safety, but the way it is interpreted by the gun lobbies endangers our safety instead. As a patriotic American, does that sound right to you?

 
 
 

Follow Sanjay Sanghoee on Twitter: www.twitter.com/sanghoee

FOLLOW POLITICS
In the wake of the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado, it is time to take a long, hard look at the role of guns in our society. This is not about politics but about pure common sense. Let's start wi...
In the wake of the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado, it is time to take a long, hard look at the role of guns in our society. This is not about politics but about pure common sense. Let's start wi...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 720
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (9 total)
01:26 AM on 08/15/2012
"There is none, and the Second Amendment was not meant to justify such a thing." I stop reading this article after that sentence. The author has shown complete ignorance as to the meaning of the Second Amendment.
10:28 PM on 08/14/2012
I'm so amused that "Sanjay Sanghoee" lectures us what amendments of the constitution need to be repealed and what constitutes patriotism. How ironic. Woow.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frazeart
07:33 PM on 08/14/2012
You make it obvious that you have ZERO comprehension of the Founder's intention for the 2nd Amendment. It was not to protect the United States from enemies abroad, it was to prevent encroachment by the Federal Government on citizens freedom. How do I know this? I read the Federalist Papers and the debates surrounding the creation of the Bill of Rights. The Founder's intentions are clearly spelled out.

These 4 quotes add great perspective to the 2nd Amendment.

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts)
02:37 PM on 08/12/2012
Let me point out that you cannot purchase a firearm on-line (not exactly).

A firearm purchased on-line is subject to the same rules and regulations as when it is purchased from a local brick and mortar gun store. The firearm MUST be shipped to a local firearms dealer (who will charge a fee for the service). The local firearms dealer will hold the weapon until the buyer passes a government run background test, and until any required waiting period is over.

Reasons why a person would buy a firearm on-line, slight discount in price (once local seller fees and shipping are taken into account), or greater product availability than local gun stores, NOT to circumvent any existing laws pertaining to the purchase of firearms.
02:16 PM on 08/30/2012
You should stop with reality based posts. That holds no interest for them.

Everything you said was spot on. I have been through the process many times.
05:42 PM on 08/09/2012
maybe we can use ghandi tactics when we get mugged .......stick to ripping us off for our slurpees
10:16 PM on 08/06/2012
The patriots were the armed citizens who used their guns to stop the British, and give us a nation inthe first place. Consider also that during the previous centuries when guns were worn on the hips of men there were no school shootings or churches shot to pieces. This practice began when the NO GUNS ALLOWED signs went up. GunControl is foolish and causes the deaths of innocent citizens.
photo
CaliforniaMountainBiker
Fiscal conservative social liberal
08:50 PM on 08/05/2012
America pays a very high price for many things much more so than 2nd Amendment rights - consider this:

In 2008:
37,985 people died in Motor vehicles
31,116 people died from poisoning
12,179 people died from firearms

http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=app-v-ehip-wisq.cdc.gov&_port=5081&_sessionid=QGAyPGviM52&_program=wisqars.leadcaus10.sas&log=1&rept=&State=00&year1=2008&year2=2008&Race=0&Ethnicty=0&Sex=0&ranking=20&PRTFMT=FRIENDLY&lcdfmt=lcd1age&category=INJ&c_age1=0&c_age2=0&_debug=0

In 2008, 825,564 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC
http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hagagaga
You can't take the sky from me.
03:22 PM on 07/30/2012
There is a very large difference between patriotism and totalitarianism.
photo
Colorado Hunter
Now a Idaho Hunter
02:40 PM on 07/24/2012
Ya sure it is always patriotic to limit a freedom from the Bill of Rights, how about limiting your 1st and 4th Amendment Right Sanjay?
01:39 PM on 07/24/2012
I personally don't need an assault weapon. Wouldn't have one in my home. Would need to purchase a hand gun for self-protection. I'm not one that thinks of guns as anything more than a way to protect myself and family. It's not a sport to me at all. I don't like them. But, the purpose of the second amendment was not actually to protect us from intruders it was for a citizen malitia to protect itself against an out of control government. And, yes, I think we are very very very close to have an out of control government. So, I think the power of the government dictates that the second amendment demands the right to have assault weapons because that's the only thing that could achieve the amendments purpose.
09:38 AM on 08/04/2012
I think your assessment of the second amendment is ridiculous . You are seriously suggesting that the constitution includes a self destruct button allowing civil war and revolution if you decide you don't like them . At thd moment you are killing around 300,000 people and wounding over a million every decade and don't have enough insight to realise this is not what your founding fathers had in mind for a prosperous future and get lost in deranged interpretation
08:09 AM on 08/06/2012
Oh, my it is truely sad how many people have no clue about American history and the founding of your nation. Yes, that is EXACTLY what the founding fathers had in mind. Do you have the slightest clue who they were and what they did to get where they were?
04:05 AM on 08/09/2012
Your assessment of the Second Amendment is ridiculous. Yes, it *is* there to allow revolution if our government becomes tyrannical. This is precisely what the Founding Fathers had in mind when writing this amendment to our Constitution.

Please read the contemporary writings of the Founding Fathers when they declared independence and gathered together to write our Constitution. Your thoughts on this matter are the exact opposite of the truth.

Knowledge is power, and I strongly recommend that you gain the knowledge to truly understand our history and why the Founding Fathers thought that the right to keep and bear arms was so important.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Sanjay Sanghoee
10:50 AM on 07/24/2012
I just saw this from DeclineToState and had to respond to it. Here's the quote:

"We support sensible gun laws, like increasing the ability for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, but the anti-gun rights politicians propose only nonsense like magazine-capacity limits and "assault weapon" bans."

Seriously? So gun laws that prevent you from buying weapons of mass murder are not sensible? Let me say this once and for all - the right to bear arms does NOT justify stockpiling weapons or owning heavy duty weapons. If you interpret the 2nd Amendment that way, then you are perverting the very spirit of our Constitution, which was certainly not to encourage a militant, violent culture!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Carson
12:33 PM on 07/24/2012
Sanjay--the civilian ownership of the AR is protected by the in common use standard set in Heller and I would tend not to agree to ANY arbitrary limit on magazine capacity because groups like the Brady Campaign have a long history of violating every "compromise" reach, also having survived the 1992 Los Angeles riots, I know there are legitimate uses for magazines with 30+ round capacities
01:41 PM on 07/24/2012
Not really. The second amendment was added for citizens to protect theirself from the government itself.
05:01 PM on 07/24/2012
Yep. Gun control advocates don't even know what an assault rifle is. The Colorado shooter didn't use one. He used an ar15, which is semi auto and happens to LOOK like an assault rifle. A true assault rifle is select fire, meaning full auto and semi auto capability. Don't try to tell them that because their fingers are firmly inserted in their ears. And mag cap limits are a joke, you can easily tie two 30rd mags together upside down and voila - a 60 round clip. Good luck getting the tens of millions of 30rd pmags out of circulation. Guns aren't exclusively for hunting and sef defense, they are for overthrowing a corrupt government as well. I'm not saying we're any where close to that, but it's written into the constitution for a reason, and it's authors we're very explicit in that intent.
06:17 AM on 07/24/2012
2nd amendment refers to muskets and old pistols not the types of modern, high tech guns we see nowadays. It´s only common sense to update the right to bear arms to modern times and avoid more massacres.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Carson
12:35 PM on 07/24/2012
the idea that the 2nd amendment only protects 18th century weapons was rejected as ridiculous by the Supreme Court
07:21 AM on 07/25/2012
When the 2nd amendment was written, those were the common types of personal fire weapons. That is a fact whatever anyone says or thinks of it. I can´t believe the amendment foresaw all the mass destruction weapons that would be developed in the future and protected those also. High capacity magazines, automatic weapons, grenade launchers, mines, nuclear warheads. Do you?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dimensio
I just don't know what went wrong!
11:29 PM on 07/27/2012
You must therefore also believe that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution refers only to speech that is written manually, printed with a manually operated press or spoken without any electronic amplification.  You must believe also that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not protect from warrantless searches of automobiles or electronic devices and communications, and does not apply to interception of electronic voice communication.

You must also be able to explain why your claim should be believed despite it being demonstrably contradicted by established law.  Please do so.
07:38 AM on 07/28/2012
It´s not a matter of belief, but a matter of facts. When it was written, it simply was not possible to arm yourself with weapons powerful enough and go on to storm the beach. This is the historic fact so I don´t need to prove it further. But you are the one who should argue that the founding fathers could indeed foresee the future, as you seem to be stating by your poor and highly demagogic examples. Please do so.
10:56 PM on 07/23/2012
even if u ban guns if anyone wants to get a hold of those guns they can, its just like illegal drugs lol
02:06 PM on 08/30/2012
But that's reality Jason. They try to steer clear of that.
photo
DeclineToState
Cogito, ergo armatum
09:21 PM on 07/23/2012
-- "The Second Amendment was designed to ensure our safety, but the way it is interpreted by the gun lobbies endangers our safety instead."

It isn't the role of "the gun lobbies" to interpret the Second Amendment, that role belongs to the Supreme Court. This is what they said:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
photo
DeclineToState
Cogito, ergo armatum
09:19 PM on 07/23/2012
-- "Restricting the availability of guns will not alone get rid of mayhem, but it will at least give us some breathing room to address the root psychological causes of violence."

No it won't. There are already over 200 million firearms in circulation in the US, you can't really "restrict the availability" of them any more than the government has been able to "restrict the availability" of illegal drugs. All you will succeed in doing is disarming and infringing on the rights of the law-abiding.

-- "The deaths of innocent people should never be a political issue"

Then why are you politicizing them by pushing for "restricting the availability of guns"?

-- "Just because you believe in the right to bear arms does not mean that you have to follow the NRA's playbook or that you cannot support sensible gun laws."

We support sensible gun laws, like increasing the ability for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, but the anti-gun rights politicians propose only nonsense like magazine-capacity limits and "assault weapon" bans.
02:09 PM on 08/30/2012
Excellent post that is based in reality. So obviously, most here will not agree.