Skip to main content

Guns, Guns, Guns

 

Guns

Do we have a right to bear arms? According to LaFollette (2007), this is a moral question, not a constitutional one (p. 180). The United States Constitution certainly says we do. Millions of citizens would also say we do, as well. Hundreds of years ago, the founding fathers of this country decided that people should be able own firearms. It wasn’t simply owning the weapons that they were intent on stating, but that it was a right of every person. A right means that no one can take it away from you for any reason. Just like freedom of speech, everyone has the right to own a gun. However, there are concerns, rightfully so, from people who wish to create a more sensible approach to this right. Gun control advocates have long considered accidents involving guns a major reason for introducing greater regulation of firearms, including such measures as mandated training for gun purchases, firearm safety locks, and strict limitations on the ownership of handguns (Utter & Spitzer, 2016, p. 3). But these efforts continually are met with resistance by the opposition. These oppositionists peddle the narrative that owning a gun is equally as important as any of the other rights we have as citizens of this country. But this right comes at a cost.

More guns

I’ve always believed that people should have the right to own firearms. However, I would also be the first in line to give up my right to own firearms if it meant that no one could own a gun, and there would be no more senseless deaths caused by someone that killed their family, their neighbor, or their coworkers. It is almost a daily occurrence where we see on the news another person took the lives of innocent people all because they had access to a firearm. Are we morally obligated to stop this nonsense? Are we as a nation capable of standing up to the corporations, and politicians that continue to be financed by the gun industry? Thus far, we have not.

ALL THE GUNS

For those that demand we not change the narrative and keep guns in the hands of responsible gun owners, I say to you – good for you. The United States of America was founded hundreds of years ago with principles that allowed individuals the right to bear arms. Although centuries have passed, what has remained are the rights granted to citizens that include owning firearms. To them, owning a gun is a fundamental right reserved for them, and every other gun toting person, which is something no one can take away from them, ever. If someone attempts to take the guns from them, attempts to further regulate guns by reducing their options, or makes the situation more difficult for them, then there will be problems.

The right to own a gun goes back so far that it makes this country a gun nation. Will it ever change? Not anytime soon.

References

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. In The practice of ethics (pp. 8-21). Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

Utter, G., & Spitzer, R. (2016). The gun debate: an encyclopedia of gun control & gun rights in the United States (Third edition.). Grey House Publishing.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Marques

  Dear Marques, You’ve continued to gain a lot more knowledge of leadership, the foundational approaches using different aspects from the elements of theories, and a profound appreciation for senior leaders. The question before you today is – what will you do to get back to the mountain top? Your Personal Vision You’ve stated that your personal vision is “to be happy as much as possible” (Thomey, 2021, p. 2). We both know that you were at your best when you were happiest. Whether on the mountain top or not, you brought out the best in yourself when you were happy. You need to find a way to get back to that place so everything else can fall into place. Three Learning Goals In order to accomplish your personal vision, you must establish three learning goals with milestones so that you have a plan and a pathway for getting this done. Your first goal should be to reengage with the Dale Carnegie group for continuing education classes. I know you found this group to have a tra...

Consequentialism vs Deontology

  Consequentialism vs Deontology Is it a glass half-empty or a glass half-full? It appears to me that what separates consequentialism and deontology is perspective. LaFollette (2007) writes that consequentialists must explain which consequences we should count, how much weight or consideration we should give those that do count, and how we should use these considerations when deliberating (p. 25). However, deontology is usually regarded as a foil to consequentialism ( Heinzelmann, 2018, p. 5201). What I find as the takeaway from this situation is that consequentialism isn’t necessarily grounded in morality, whereas deontology finds itself in a set of negative rules. As LaFollette points out with consequentialism, we must look at and use several dimensions to understand and consider what are the consequences of a situation. Deontology doesn’t require this additional gate check, but instead relies on our experience learning right and wrong from the negative perspective. Much like a...