Pro Gun Rights Movement

Dr. Aaron Mason and Mr. Kirk Rogers from the Northwestern Oklahoma State Universities social science program were the key speakers during the 2014 Constitutional Day Program. An overview of gun control and the second amendment in the United States of America was presented. The program was presented by Dr. Aaron Mason and Mr. Kirk Rogers, both part of the social science education program at Northwestern Oklahoma State University. Dr. Mason is part of the political science program and played the role of a pro-gun position. Dr. Mason reviled his true views which aligned with the role his was defending. “I do believe people have the right to own firearms and that is supported by the second amendment,” he said, “but I do not think it is an absolute right.” In contrast, Mr. Rodgers, part of the criminal justice program, played the role of a defendant for pro-gun regulation. However, he reviled he is pro-gun and was just playing the role for the sole purpose of debate.
A key point that both Dr. Mason and Mr. Rogers continued to refer to throughout the entire debate was federalism. Federalism is defined as the separation of state and federal power. This point was so often reoccurring and indeed the most important, was because the constitution designates gun right/restrictions
as a state power. To sum up a quote written by James Madison, the states have the right to arm themselves against the federal government. This leaves room for confusion or interpretation by each of the states individually bring us to the next key point.
Having gun rights declared as a state power enables each state to interpret the “militia” part of the constitution as liberal or as conservative as desired. Liberals tend to want the federal government to have much control and to enforce many laws: hence, tend to make gun laws very restrictive. Whereas a conservative believes in states’ rights and would like to think the purpose of government is not to create law to control things like guns, but to stick to where the economy is concerned. This difference in political ideology is also part of the reason for such fear during election time Mr. Rodgers explained, “When a democrat becomes president, the fear in republicans drastically escalate.” He continued to give the example of when President Barack Obama was elected into office and there was a big outcry from republicans that he was going to “take their guns away.”
On the other hand, there become issues when gun rights are designated as strictly a state power.
A few of the problems mentioned were gun licenses and gun trafficking. Dr. Mason stated his opinion by saying, “when guns are traded intrastate of course it is a state thing, but when the guns are being traded interstate, that becomes a federal issue.” Later he also explained that states should not have to respect other states regulations as their own. An example would be if a person in Oklahoma had a concealed carry license, Maine should not be liable to enable him to keep it in their state. These are just two simple examples that shed light on the reason that gun regulations are not black and
white.
The second amendment causes a lot of disagreements and confusion between public officials for the reason that it wasn’t clear what the purpose behind it was when it was written. One of the confusing terms is the word “militia” and to who or what its interpretation was. Some claim that “militia” was meant to be interpreted solely by the states constitution. Then the other was to interpret the second amendment was that the constitution was giving the people the right to own firearms and that restriction are an infringement on that right. However, society has spoken and they do want restrictions provided no one wants a ten-year-old boy or a criminal holding a fully automating weapon. Mr. Rogers referred us back to the James Brady Campaign and the Brady Bill. A bill that put into place background checks for citizens purchasing a gun. These background checks were put in place to not only to prevent criminals from purchasing guns, but also to limit crimes of passion. This plan was effective however citizens claim these background checks are too intrusive while not preforming effectively enough. Dr. Mason stated, “I agree with the claim, guns to not hurt people, guns in the wrong hands do.”
During the debate the topic of mental illness and gun rights were rightfully compared. A young woman from the audience gave the statistic that one in three people in America suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder – all possible possessing the same right to own a gun. Mr. Rogers gave the example of James Holmes, Aurora, CO theater shooter. An obvious mentally deranged man who could purchase weapons with the intent to hurt many innocent people. There is no system currently in place to prevent a mentally unstable person from purchasing a gun besides the honor system which is frightening and sad. Other key points mentioned were if there was even a necessity for people to have the guns that are restricted.
Dr. Mason ended the night with what I thought was a very noble and true statement about the different opinions on the issue, he said, “the truth is between the true extremes.” I interpreted the two extremes as the liberal view and the conservative view, thus making the moderate view. “If you have an opinion on the issue, you must participate in politics at your local level. That’s the only way to handle it,” Mr. Rodgers added. The 2014 Constitutional Day program on the second amendment and gun rights was moving and helped me to not only strengthen my view, but also to see how an opposing view has merit.