The commonwealth’s gun control
regulations are themselves a paradox, creating an undue burden for the
disadvantaged on one hand and unintended, sometimes deadly results on the
other. Obeying the law, we rarely think about the consequences of owning a
firearm. It has been stated that there are more gun owners in Berkshire County
than either registered Democrats or Republicans. There is a proposal in the
legislature to further tighten access to firearms in our state. Local residents
have a vested interest in current and future restrictions and regulations
imposed on their right to posses firearms.
We
have heard, “If gun control worked, Chicago would be like Mayberry. Guns are
like parachutes, we may only need one once and if we do not have it we will
never need it again.” Massachusetts licensing procurement is one of the most
stringent in the United States. License application is sought at our local
police station where we are scrutinized and profiled as to what we deserve a
license for. Without criminal or mental history we qualify to be trained and
carry a firearm. We pay for a training certificate and a one hundred-dollar
license fee. If refused, we can request a hearing before the local court for
judicial determination. Imagine, if we did this for 100mph vehicle operation or
receiving habit-forming prescription narcotics? The latter two, drugs and cars kill thousands every year.
There
are costs, often quite expensive for firearms, ammunition and licensing. The
costs are discriminatory and unaffordable for many, only accessible to those
having several hundred dollars. The
expense punishes the poor, yet in this instance it is deemed acceptable. The
irony is poor people are more subject to crime because of the environment they
live in. When the costs of gun
ownership rise that segment of society is very limited in their decisions. We
are upset when they remain unlicensed and buy cheap illegal guns. Another
social consequence of being poor, the government will never subsidize firearm
ownership.
Is
a firearm necessary? So many profess it
is not. The epitome of safety is
standing beside a police officer because he has a gun and is trained. There is
not a more noble profession. The limitation of police is that they cannot be
everywhere all the time and most of the time they are completely reactionary to
events. They arrive in time to summon an ambulance, photograph the crime scene,
or conduct the investigation. The
proactive side of police work is ever changing; whatever criminal opportunity
exists, the unsavory will seek to take advantage. It can be devastating to be a
victim and deprived of governmental protection, or any protection. A firearm is not necessary for everyone but
vital for many.
Society
discourages firearm exposure for our children, while at the same time we
increase the exposure to Marijuana, a gateway drug to further drug abuse. Marijuana possession was one reason for
restricting firearms’ licenses. By decriminalizing it, previously denied
firearm ownership applicants could now be eligible. Will the people so
restricted be applying for gun licenses? What a collateral effect, as we
decriminalize drugs we make more drug-using citizens eligible for gun rights they
were denied.
Mental
health disclosure is a portion of firearms’ safety. Liberalizing mental health disorder restrictions, not recognizing
the danger to society has been disastrous. Labeling a disorder was not
politically correct but it was a lot safer, a social consequence.
The left’s amnesty push
for illegal aliens may ultimately backfire. The National Rifle Association is
expecting a huge membership increase. More people granted citizenship and the
"right to bear arms." Having been deprived of personal protection in
their previous country, they will welcome their new constitutional right to
bear arms. Adamant new gun owners may change the vote in ways we can only
imagine.
No comments:
Post a Comment