mediation

The 2^nd amendment of the Bill of Rights is a much discussed topic in today’s society. There have been many Supreme Court cases that deal with this subject. The 2^nd amendment itself states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A lot of people have different views on this subject and I have tried to mediate the two sides into a plan that will make each side happy.

The process in which one obtains a fire arm varies from state to state, and in my opinion I think the USA should make its own policy on how to obtain a fire arm. This should exist of an extensive background check; also the obtainer should provide proof on which he/she will be using the gun. There could be a few different reasons to use a gun; the use of recreational activities, self-defense, and that they are not involved in a gang, cult, or other violent society, are just an example of the ways to use a gun correctly. One other thing that the obtainer should provider is that he/she is not mentally ill, or never been diagnosed with a mental illness.

On the issue of what recreational activities are approved, my partner in this mediation and I decided that hunting for wild game, and sport shooting was a proper way to use a firearm legally. When we discussed this issue, we decide that this would allow people to get out doors and to spend quality time with their families. As experiences as a child, hunting with my dad was a great way for my dad and I to bound. This would build strong relationships with parents and children, which we think would cut down on violence all together.

When someone wants to say they are using it for self-defense, I think they should prove that they have taken a course in gun safety and how to use a gun in self-defense. My partner and I believe that if they would create a course for civilians to take in which, they taught them how to properly use a gun and also how to properly use one in a self-defense matter, then the person that took the course would be allowed to obtain a firearm. This would help the number of gun related deaths decrease even more then what it has over the past years according to facts founded by The US department of defense.

We believe that it is important for the obtainer to provide proof that he/she is not in a cult, clan, gang or other related society, for the fact that many deaths from firearms, in my opinion, are from the acts of these societies. Not to say I do not like these societies, it’s just from what I have seen many deaths are due to them. If they can prove all of these facts, then the person should be allowed a firearm, considering we believe they would bring no harm onto society.

Also, I believe that the government should ban the use of a certain speed of firearms and a certain caliber in the firearm. This would cut down on how much damage would be done to the intended target. For example, the 50 caliber sniper rifle is just way to powerful for a civilian to have as a gun, unless they were properly trained with it. For the few cases in which the civilian has had proper training with the guns, then a special license would be permitted to that person.

The presidential debate on this issue is one that is of interest to many people and I have found that almost all of the presidential candidates are pro gun control in some form of another. For example, Dennis Kucinich wanted the ban of semi-automatic guns, and handguns (Gun Control: 2008 contender's view). There are many more examples of the candidates on gun control, but most of them are for it in some way or another. An exception is Fred Thompson, and he is against gun control all the way. He voted no for background checks at gun shows and voted yes for maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks (Gun Control: 2008 contender's view).

All in all, my partner and I believe that the issue of gun control can be settled if certain precautions are taken. If they obtainer of a gun can prove that they will not harm anyone with it, or that they have not means to harm anyone, then they could have the permission to obtain a firearm. Also, the gun control issue is very big in the political aspects of the presidential race. Many people will pick the president on what they say about gun control. If people would consider this mediation then the gun policy would, in our opinion, work out and not be an issue any more.

Bibliography

Barnes, R. (2007, 11 21). Justices to rule on D.C. gun ban. Washington Post , p. AO1.

Cornell, S. (2006). A Well-Regulated Militia. New YorK: Oxford University Press, Inc.

Doyle, M. (2007, 11 9). Supreme Court gun-control case could be landmark. Ney York Times .

Gun Control: 2008 contender's view. (n.d.). Retrieved 12 6, 2007, from On the Issue Every Political Leader on Every Issue: http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm

Tatalovich, R., & Daynes, B. W. (2005). Moral Controversies in american Politics. In R. j. Spitzer, Gun Control Constitutional Mandate or Myth (pp. 167-195). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.

Mediation Brief

Brief

The mediation part of this assignment will consist of an attempt at bring the two sides on gun control to a compromise. There has been controversy concerning this topic since before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were even written. The thesis of this mediation blog is, “The argument over the 2^nd Amendment should not have a resolution consisting entirely of gun-rights proposals or entirely of gun-control proposals but rather should be a resolution intertwined by compromises made by both sides of the controversy. This sort of resolution would still give individuals the right keep and bear arms, but there would be limits and regulations that would have to be followed.” To introduce the paper, I will use the 2^nd Amendment and its interpretations. The 2^nd Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This will allow me to introduce the topic at hand and its arguments. With this introduction, I will include several court cases and laws that have developed the gun-control and gun-rights movement. In regards to court cases, I will include Supreme Court cases U.S. v. Cruikshank and Miller v. Texas as well as Court of Appeals case U.S. v. Emerson. As for the laws, I will mention the Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, The Brady Bill, and the Assault Weapons Ban. Through the next part of the paper, I will introduce the ideas that will mediate the two sides. First of all, I will introduce the proposed ideas of mediation. These include specific rules and regulations. First of which is that stricter background check be imposed including criminal record, history of violence or depression, and previous involvement in a gang, cult, clan, or anything where violence is associated with it. Secondly, there needs to be a ban on weapons that are not really necessary for anything besides hurting people. This is specifically meant for the continuation of the ban on assault weapons. Next, the topic of self-defense will be discussed. The gun-rights side of the 2^nd Amendment claims that being allowed to carry a weapon provides an effective mode of self-defense. To compromise on this reason, we propose that a class that can be taken by the public on gun safety. This can be a prerequisite that is required to carry a concealed hand gun or any other type of firearm. Lastly, using guns for recreation will be discussed. This will help show that the use of firearms does not always result in a negative outcome. Guns are instilled in the American culture, and instead of showing how bad guns supposedly are, we will focus on using guns as a means of recreation. Pushing guns into our culture for recreation will promote things such as enjoying the outdoors, exercising, and family values. To finish the paper, the political stances of the presidential candidates will be discussed. This will provide a means to see where our country is heading in the future with respect to the control of guns. So, although the controversy seems pretty impossible to resolve without upsetting someone in some group, these are the means by which we plan to compromise until a solution can be reached.

Thesis: The argument over the 2^nd Amendment should not have a resolution consisting entirely of gun-rights proposals or entirely of gun-control proposals but rather should be a resolution intertwined by compromises made by both sides of the controversy. This sort of resolution would still give individuals the right keep and bear arms, but there would be limits and regulations that would have to be followed.

Reason: Interpretation of 2^nd Amendment

Evidence: History/Origin- “Civic”

Evidence: Conflicts- Gun-rights and Gun-control

Evidence: Court Cases and Lawes

Reason: Individual Uses of Guns/Mediation Points

Evidence: Regulations

Proof: Stricter Background Check

Proof: Ban of Unnecessary Firearms

Evidence: Self-Defense

Proof: Statistics

Proof: Promotion of Class

Evidence: Recreation

Proof: American Culture

Proof: Promote Getting Outside

Reason: Presidential Candidates’ Platforms/Modern Ideology

Evidence: Republicans

Evidence: Democrats

Brief

Thesis: Gun control is a good idea for the public to enforce because of many different reasons.

Reason: The amount of violent crimes will be reduced.
Backup: Use info from graphs on the history of crimes.

Reason: The suicide rate will decrease.
Backup: Use from historical report on the issue.
Reason: Self-defense rights.
Backup: The rate that a gun is used in self-defense is not that high.
Reason: How powerful firearms are now
Backup: Compare the power of old guns to new guns with new technology.