Three Lefts Will Realign the Right

            Liberals, as far left to the right as you are, you have to understand that the conservative faction is essential, and in fact a necessary aspect of the two-party system.  There will always be people on one of the two sides of this fence with any issue—those who want to change something, and those who want to keep it the same.  The conservative/liberal conflict has always been a part of this country from its genesis—those who wanted to be a new country, and those who still wanted to be part of England.  And it has continued throughout our history: the debate about slavery, women’s rights, civil rights.  Now through the lens of history it is easy to see the progressives were mostly right.  The progressives are usually right, because in enough time the country as a whole progresses more to the left.  Still the conservative base is a necessary evil to tame the radical progressives.  To keep us from going over to communism after the great depression, to keep us from weakening our military in times of peace, to keep unions from getting too much power.  However, in the past once the country as a whole progressed to the left these past discussions were no longer revisited.  No one debates the issue of slavery, women’s suffrage, or desegregation in schools anymore.  Yet lately, the conservative right has been unable to get past any issue even after it has been decided and the country has moved on.  It’s time now that we eliminate some of these issues.  Abortion, religious indoctrination, and gay marriage, are fights that need to be ended for the sake of the country.  We all suffer when the party to our right is a party of stubborn fools.  We need to advance them, so our congress can go back to intelligent debates.  They need to become again the party that argues for the status quo, not the party that argues for what once was.

            Roe v. Wade was a 1973 landmark Supreme Court Decision that defended the constitutionality of abortion under the privacy clause of the 14^th Amendment.  This argument was decided over 40 years ago.  But from the countless attempts today of republicans trying to repeal Obamacare, it is obvious that some on the right do not respect the rulings of the highest court in the land.  Now this is a very personal decision for some people, and they have the right to feel that this ruling was wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that they have to respect this ruling.  To live in a country that believes in rule of law, it should be agreed upon that we cannot argue anymore that abortion is illegal.  Yet still states in the present day try their subtle ways to make an abortion as inconvenient as possible.  There is only one center for abortions in the entire state of North Dakota, and still the state legislature decided to pass the most restrictive abortion measure ever, prohibiting abortions after six weeks of pregnancy.  Anyone familiar with conception knows that it is usually around this time that the woman even learns that she is pregnant.  The Supreme Court had ruled a woman has the right to abortion until the stage of viability.  This six-week time frame is against the ruling of Roe v. Wade, and yet it manages to get passed.  This is the equivalent of a state allowing segregated schools in opposition to Brown v. Board of Education.  But Supreme Court ruling are just rulings.  They need to be enforced by the executive branch.  In the 1960’s when schools in the south tried to stay segregated, President Lyndon B. Johnson sent the FBI down to the states to carry out this ruling.  This is the precedent for President Barack Obama to use whatever means necessary to protect these abortion clinics and a woman’s right to choose.  We need to deny any legislature that is against the rulings of Roe v. Wade.  We need to end this abortion debate.  It’s not a debate anymore.  It was resolved forty years ago.  There are just sore losers now, who will never bend because of their faith.

            The faith that is strongest against abortion is the Christian faith.  Christians have their right to believe abortion is wrong.  But they do not have the right to feel their religious beliefs should affect legislature.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”  This is actually the first ten words of the Bill of Rights, that’s how important the Founding Fathers felt it was.  Clear as day, it is written that creating any law that respects a religion is unconstitutional, and yet it is disregarded openly.  On our money it says, “In God We Trust.”  Added to our Pledge of Allegiance were the two words “Under God” in 1954.  These are examples of the Christian God being part of our American culture.  Conservatives will argue that from The Founding Fathers on, America was always a Christian nation.  Too bad, they really don’t understand those great men who founded this nation.  John Adams hated organized religion.  Thomas Jefferson was a deist who wrote his own bible where Jesus performed no miracles.  There are countless quotes from the founders of our country putting down organized religion.  Yet conservative pundits continue to believe America should always be a Christian nation.  They are so absolute in their faith they feel it is okay for creationism to be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution.  Well no, it is not okay, it is not even constitutional.  Teaching creationism in school isn’t something like the terms “Easter Vacation,” or “Christmas Pageant,” or things of that nature.  Teaching creationism is respecting the myth of one religion as if it was fact.  Would anyone agree with teaching the Greek myth of the Primordials creating the universe?  They both have as much of a chance at being true.  Evolution is still a theory, not a concrete scientific law.  But what is a scientific law is that creationism is not an explanation of the universe.  Dinosaurs did exist, the earth is 6000 years old, and allowing this to be taught to students is essentially indoctrinating our children into the Christian faith.  We are not just teaching about the religion—which schools should educate about all the religions—we are teaching that this religious myth in fact explains the universe.  This lesson plan is unconstitutional and needs to be removed from any curriculum taught in public schools.  Conservatives will argue they have a right to teach it, they will even argue this history of the universe to be true.  Christian beliefs have no place in the politics of our country.  We need to eliminate conservative positions based solely on the Christian faith.  They are unconstitutional positions.  And once the nation as a whole decides on this ground rule—to not use religious faith to decide legislature—then we can agree there is no reason for gay marriage to be prohibited.

            Gay marriage is against the Christian faith, and by all means Christian churches are within their right to not allow gay marriages in their church.  This is the idea of separation of church and state.  The state cannot tell the church how to conduct its policies, but likewise the church cannot tell the state how to do theirs.  Marriage is not a religious contract.  People can get married by a justice of the peace.  At the end of the ceremony, the justice of the peace or the pastor both say, “by the power vested in me by the state…” not by a religious establishment.  It is a state contract not a religious one, so its regulation should be defined by the state.  So the argument that it is condemned in Leviticus is irrelevant.  The sanctity of marriage is also irrelevant, since sanctity means the quality of being holy.  So when we take the religion aspect out of it, what are we now banning here?  Two consenting adults who love each other cannot be considered a legal partnership in the eyes of the state, because some people based on their religious views are uncomfortable with homosexual love.  How is this American?  How is this freedom?  In 2004 a good group of Americans were against gay marriage, and it helped win the re-election of George W. Bush.  Almost ten years later, most Americans are now for gay marriage.  This is proof that America naturally progresses to the left.  But our elected government needs to move past this debate.  States rebelled against the idea of ending slavery, and still the 13^th Amendment was passed.  Our president needs to stop acting like a kid on the sidelines.  He has only said his opinion has changed, and he is now for the concept of gay marriage.  He needs to step it up, and propose a federal amendment protecting the rights of gays to marry.  Make it law, and end this debate like Lincoln ended the debate of slavery in 1865.

            Our elected liberal leaders need to act with half of the aggression as the conservatives.  They are creatively coming up with every possible restriction to ban abortion.  They are trying to indoctrinate their religion in our schools.  They are arguing passionately to prohibit gay marriage.  We need to stop entertaining this debate.  We need to fight back and fight harder, and eliminate these discussions entirely.  We need to express how we really feel.  That these opinions are not respected because they are based on religious beliefs and not about freedoms granted in a democratic nation.  These arguments are not valid because they are unconstitutional.  These debates are over.  And then as a nation we can move past these arguments, we can become a more secular nation, and in turn a more enlightened one.  We can then have more intelligent debates that will make our country stronger, instead of what we have now.  Where one side is tolerant of other people and the other side is bigotry shielded in the armor of a certain religion.           

N.R.A. (Not Right America)

I knew I would have to write about what happened in Sandy Hook.  I am from Connecticut, and I worked in Sandy Hook just over this past summer.  I have written a few blogs about gun control.  Also I was a teacher myself, and I even published a novel about a school shooting in 2011.  I will reference links to each work at the end of this article, to show that my position is not a knee jerk reaction, and in fact I still feel the same that I felt before this shooting—that the National Rifle Association still only cares about gun sales, that we need to keep the intention of the 2^nd Amendment, but background checks must be conducted in all gun sales, and with now even stricter guidelines.  I decided to wait until the facts of the shooting in Sandy Hook came out, and the NRA made their statement.  Now in the words of Jules Winnfield from Inglewood—please allow me to retort.

                The NRA and many other guns owners state the case that guns are a deterrent against “bad people.”  In fact to quote NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre, “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.”  Now, never mind I find this simplistic labeling of “good guy/bad guy” a childish view when discussing a complex issue—for example George W. Bush speaking about foreign policy—this opinion also ignores the scenario where the bad guy with a gun is suicidal.  What does he care if you end his life, if he is already prepared to end his?  He may not get to carry out his ultimate goal, but you can learn from Kamikaze pilots and the 9/11 attacks, suicidal attackers cannot be deterred.  But yes, they can be stopped.  I mean we cannot deny that the Aurora shooter chose the one movie theatre out of seven in his area that was a gun free zone.  The threat of a gun does deter criminals.  But keeping with this childish viewpoint that all the good guys wear white, we can’t assume that all good guys with guns will be responsible with them, have great accuracy and only kill the bad guys.  Conservative pundits like Bill O’Reilly, in speaking about gun control with Bob Costas just a week before the Sandy Hook shooting, he said that if people in the movie theatre in Aurora had guns on them they could have taken down the shooter, and stopped the shooter before he took as many lives as he did.  Again this hypothesis is not only childish, but also unrealistic.  Let’s assume Dirty Harry isn’t in the theatre but instead, a lot of regular Americans are who hear gunshots in a dark movie theatre and get nervous.  When a second shooter from the back of the theatre attacks the shooter, what is there to tell the rest of the audience that the threat is over and not think that the second shooter is also part of the attack.  Now a third person with a gun, shoots at the second, and then a fourth fires at the third.  Now everyone in the dark theatre is shooting at everyone else, and there is not less carnage but more.  What if we arm every teacher with a gun, but some of them take students cues that wrong way and act irresponsible with the weapon?  Also, students now don’t even have to bring a gun into school, but instead just manage to subdue one of the teachers.  Everyone armed is not necessarily a safer scenario.  Don’t misunderstand what the NRA is promoting here is not a safer environment, but just a subtle way to drive up gun sales.           

                Now some people still say they want to keep guns, but just not certain types of guns.  They want to ban handguns with more than 10 round clips.  They want to ban assault rifles.  Even the president said hunters don’t need that type of gun.  And it’s true, deer hunters don’t need an AR-15 assault rifles—but revolutionaries do.  The true intention of the 2^nd amendment is to have the people armed if there was ever the need to rise up against the well regulated militia for the state.  It’s not for hunting, it’s not for home protection, it’s not to keep children safe at school.  We were given the right to bear arms in case we ever needed to rise up against an oppressive government.  This law was written by men who just won their independence from an oppressive government, so this scenario was possible to them.  Anti-gun proponents showed how on the same day when Sandy Hook occurred, in China a man stabbed school children.  Yes, there were no deaths and every parent would rather have that, but the man didn’t choose a knife over a gun, he didn’t have that option.  Why?  Because he resided in Communist China.  What other country did not have guns?  Nazi Germany.  If we ever need to rise up against our government, we will need the best weapons we can get our hands on, not the safest.  If we are allowing guns because of the 2^nd amendment than we have to allow the types of guns in the spirit of that cause: for the people to be able to fight back.  Fully automatic, extra-large magazines, body armor—that needs to be available to the public, otherwise we have failed in holding to the intention of the second amendment.  So no, I am not for the banning of these certain types of gun.

                “But what about what these weapons do when in the hands of a maniac?”  Well yes it’s horrible, but that’s because it is in the hands of a “maniac”.  I do not believe guns kill people, I believe people kill people, like so many gun enthusiasts believe.  However, if you subscribe to this belief, than you must be in favor of more extensive background checks.  Because, once you concede that it is people, and not guns that kill, then as a responsible state we must do everything in our power to prevent guns from getting into the hands of the wrong “people.”  This means we cannot allow 40% of gun sales to be made without background checks, like we do in this country.  Gun shows where guns are sold like a flea market without any background check need to be abolished.  And citizens selling guns to other citizens needs to be treated worse than a drug sale, not a legal transaction.  Basically, attaining a cell phone should not require more personal information than a handgun.  Also the ante we require in the checks needs to be upped.  We need a database on the mentally ill.  Everyone who owns a gun should at least have to pass a basic mental illness test.  Why screen for mental illness?  Because the culprits behind these school shootings, this innocent waste of public life are people who are mentally ill.  These are exactly the people who should not have guns in their hands, and we need to take every measure to prevent it.  Employers do background checks just to see if they should hire someone for a job like washing dishes, we can’t make this mandatory for the purchase of an object that can take away so many lives in the matter of moments?  And a gun can do that in the wrong hands—gun enthusiasts, you cannot deny that—so we must do everything to prevent this scenario.

                This is a compromise between the pro-gun and anti-gun factions, and this country was created on compromises.  We lost our way when we started to believe to never change our point of view, never give anything to the other side; and this is why now we are about to walk over a fiscal cliff, and our congress is as effective as a stringless guitar.  We need to compromise on this issue, that is how you properly end a debate, both sides give and both sides wins.  We need to allow any type of gun to be purchased by responsible Americans, anti-gun people.  It is their 2^nd Amendment right, a right to be able to rise up against the government if need be.  We lose all our power if we secede this right.  But, we can’t allow anyone to own a gun, gun enthusiasts.  Just because you are responsible does not mean everyone is, and we need to be able to determine who is and who isn’t, and prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands, because they are powerful weapons.  That is why they are valuable, dangerous, and also effective.  We can’t put guns in everyone’s hands—that is not safer, but we need to keep the spirit of the Second Amendment alive, but not put at risk the populace with a gun in the hands of the wrong person.  That is why I think simply tightening down on background checks, but allowing any type of gun to be sold to responsible people is a just compromise.  I don’t see why either side would be against this compromise unless they only care about promoting their agenda and not what is best for this country.  Anti-gunners, guns will not fall into the wrong hands, and gun enthusiasts you can own any gun you want as long as you are responsible.  The 2^nd Amendment right is not infringed, and the state can feel a little safer.  But again what do I know.  I have only written about this topic before… 

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Studies-Drew-DAmato/dp/144895472X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1356654406&sr=8-3&keywords=drew+d%27amato

http://www.drewdamato.com/blog/2011/1/12/nra-no-rational-argument-1.html

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Lawyers-Guns-and-Money-by-Drew-D-Amato-120806-387.html

MOBAMA

            The threat of a national nightmare is over.  Mitt Romney will not be the 45^th president of the United States.  President Barack Obama has been re-elected.  Us sane, liberal minded Americans can breathe a sigh of relief.  But even the conservative people of this nation—those who are sane mind you—should be happy with Romney’s defeat.  This victory for Barack Obama shows that the white vote is not enough, that social issues are important issues, and that the Republican Party now has a chance to regroup and find its sane voice again.  This article is not for the Democrats out there.  We won, we got our man for another for years.  Let’s be happy with this.  This blog is to comfort the moderate, sane republicans out there whose party has been hijacked by the tea-party ideologues.  In this defeat you can take your party back now.  You have to, if you want any chance in 2016.

            The white religious vote is not enough anymore.  It is the evolution of this country.  There are more black, brown and other colors of the rainbow voters out there now.  Also religion is not as important as it was in the 1950’s.  Sticking to courting the very narrow white, male Christian target base may work in  rural congressional districts —which is how some tea-party candidates got into congress—but it will not win in a national election.  In fact keeping to that platform will automatically turn off everyone of color, and those who could care less about religion—which is a demographic that is growing every four years.  The exit polling shows that.  Romney won the white vote 59-41%.  However, Obama took the black vote with 93%, the Hispanic vote at 71% and even the Asian vote at 73%.  As for those who are not very religious we can all assume the youth of today is a lot less religious than any other generation.  Obama took the demographic of 18-29 year olds by 60%.  Republicans, you need to embrace all the other colors of the rainbow!

            The youth vote also cares more about social issues.  They care about reproductive rights, and gay and lesbian rights.  Progressivism is always moving forward, and the younger generation is always less prejudiced than the previous one.  In 2004 Bush 2.0 helped win re-election when Karl Rove used the tactic of getting people to also vote against gay marriage.  Eight years later three states have voted by popular choice to allow gay marriage in their state.  People don’t tend to become more progressive as they get older, what happens instead is that younger generations become more progressive.  The 25 year-olds today as a whole are a world more open-minded and less prejudiced than 25 year-olds in 1912 (when women still didn’t even have the right to vote).  Younger generations care about social issues.  When they hear a politician against abortion, birth control, gay marriage, they immediately write off that candidate as crazy and out of touch—to most of the youth, these issues should just be accepted and no longer brought into the discussion.  Also taking this position, the Republicans lose voters like gays and lesbians who went 76% for Obama, and the largest group, women—who make up over half of this country—voted 55% for Obama.

            This exit-polling information is good for the moderate republican.  It is time for your party to regroup.  The crazy ideology of the tea-party that aimed for the mostly white, straight, Christian, male point of view will not be successful.  It can’t be successful.   Our country is too diverse.  It’s time for your party to make some changes.  Here are a few.  First, take religion out of your platform.  I know you like the safety of the religious right in your pocket for each election, but the country has changed since the 1980’s when Reagan embraced the religious right.  Yes, 20% of voters vote republican because they are against abortion, but where does that leave the other 80%?  The future of America is more secular, embrace that, fight for that, or your party will be done.  Second, accept the needs of other demographics—basically minorities.  Yes, you secure the white male vote, but you throw the Democrats every other demographic: women, gays, and minorities.  Rich, white, Christian, male is probably still going to vote for you guys anyway but you need to attract the people who don’t have any of these four qualities, or again you won’t be significant.  And third, get back to your strength which is economic wisdom.  This means give up on tax breaks for the rich.  Lots of people in the middle class are against entitlement programs and people on welfare milking the system.  That is your strength, but no one in the middle class wants to hear about the rich paying less in taxes.  This is a democracy, the majority wins, so stop catering to the benefit of the top 1%.  This election shows you they won’t win you an election, so forget about them.  Don’t worry, whatever the tax code is they will be alright anyway.

            This is why the country voted for Mobama.  This is what the 2012 election should tell you about your party, and how you can improve your platform.  Why I am giving advice to Republicans?  Because even though I am a liberal, I am not a devoted Democrat.  I want the best person for the job in office doing the best for America.  To reach that position, what we need is the two best people competing for the job.  I want the best from each party.  I do not want what we had here in 2012 with the best Democrat competing against the winner of the clown college.  Did you see who Romney beat for the Republican nod: Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Jon Huntsman, and of course their black candidate Herman Cain?  Romney won the endorsement by default out of these fools, but he couldn’t handle it with the big boys like Obama.  I would much rather have a better, saner talent pool for the Republicans, and more quality talent competing for the highest office in the land.  That is the best for America.            

Rape is Rape and Stupid is the Republican Agenda

                “Stupid is as stupid does,” so said the Philosopher Forrest Gump.  But stupid is actually what is perceived to be stupid.  Walk into a room of quantum physicists and ask what is string theory and they may laugh, whereas your peers would share in your bewilderment.  Stupidity is what is perceived to be stupid.  The majority of clear headed Americans when they heard Senator Todd Akin claim that in a “legitimate rape” a woman’s body shuts down so that she cannot conceive a child, considered that to be stupid.  There is no logic behind it, and there is more than enough medical evidence that proves that statement false.  The only people who did not call it stupid were some extreme members of the extreme right.  In fact other Republican politicians even defended Akin.  Congressman Steve King who defended the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act”—isn’t that a distinguished title—said he never heard of someone getting pregnant from statutory rape or incest.  This is the true threat of the current Republican agenda—defend anything Republican no matter what.  Maybe they have become conditioned to this after eight years of having to defend George Bush number 43, but whatever the case it is now against Republican policy to denounce anything another Republican says.  This ideal is so puerile, but now they don’t even condemn stupidity.  As bad as it gets for them defending their own, it is even worse when it comes to them criticizing the Democrats.  We don’t have to look at the position they take on issues like Obamacare, foreign policy, or budget spending that could be open to debate.   We just have to look at their positions on issues where there is no room for conjecture, and see that their position is just simply, stupid.

                “Obama has done nothing for the economy.”  The truth is the Republican congress has done nothing for the economy—except downgrading our credit rating by delaying a vote on raising the debt ceiling.  Obama and Democrats have attempted to pass legislation, and here is a summary of how they ended up: 

June 24th, 2010: GOP Blocks Unemployment Insurance Bill Once Again, Dems Giving Up (Open Congress)
July 29th, 2010: Republicans block small business plan in Senate (Reuters)
September 28th, 2010: GOP Blocks Bill to Punish Companies that Move Jobs Abroad (CBS News)
November 18th, 2010:  House GOP blocks bill to extend jobless benefits (USA TODAY)
November 18th, 2010: Republicans vote unanimously against equal pay for women bill (Raw Story)
December 9th, 2010: Senate Republicans block 9/11 health bill (Reuters)
October 11th, 2011: Senate Republicans block Obama’s jobs package (CBS News)
October 20th, 2011: Senate blocks money for teachers, firefighters (WaPost)
November 3rd, 2011: Republicans block $60bn infrastructure bill (Financial Times)
December 11th, 2011: Senate blocks payroll tax-cut extension (MSNBC)
March 29th, 2012: Republicans Block Repeal of Oil-Company Tax Breaks Obama Sought (Business Week)
April 17th, 2012: Senate GOP blocks Obama’s ‘Buffett rule’ for minimum tax rate on millionaires (Fox News)
May 8th, 2012: GOP blocks Senate debate on Dem student loan bill (Associated Press)[1]

Is this just playing politics? Hasn’t Obama vetoed bills the Republicans have proposed for the sake of jobs?  No, because the Republicans have not proposed anything for the sake of jobs since he has been in office.  They just vote down his proposals that could help the economy.  It is as if they would rather keep the economy stagnant for four years just so that they can take the white house in 2012.  Letting millions of Americans suffer so they can win a political game is evil, but knowing this fact and saying Obama has done nothing is stupid.

“Obama has raised taxes.”  He hasn’t raised the income tax burden on people making under $200,000 annually.  Yet some republicans believe—mostly the tea party—that 95% of the population has been paying more in taxes under his watch.  Aside from cigarette and a tanning tax, what taxes has he implemented that is affecting middle class America?  Yet Americans who know first-hand what percentage in taxes they pay annually, still say he is raising them.  Not being able to tell the truth between your own tax burden and what pundits are telling you—stupid.

But no criticism on Barack Obama hits eleven on the stupid meter more than the birther argument.  The argument itself is an insult to the American Government.  To consciously believe that someone not born in the United States can be elected president and all of the vettings of the government infrastructure managed to miss this, but yet some blue grass protestors or a billionaire with a bad hair piece saw through this rouge, is not just stupid, but down right crazy.  And for the current Republican presidential candidate to recently joke about the possibility of where our president for three and half years was born, only stresses the stupidity of the entire party.

Obama hasn’t gotten a chance for any of his proposals on creating jobs to be passed, he has not raised taxes on the middle and lower classes, and he is an American citizen born in America.  These are not issues were one can have a different point of view.  These are issues where you either accept the truth, or you are stupid.  Their agenda and talking points are against the known truth, so in essence their agenda is stupid.  Since the party is so detached from the truth on these issues, you can understand why they can also accept the fantasy that a woman’s body can prevent her from getting pregnant during a rape. 

Amendment: They are not stupid, they are crazy.  

---

[1] http://www.classwarfareexists.com/will-americans-hold-obama-accountable-for-the-least-productive-congress-in-modern-history/#axzz24zQpi0M0

Lawyers, Guns, and Money

In the wake of the tragic shooting in Aurora Colorado, at the premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises” discussion has started again—as often is the case after a random violent shooting—in regards to gun policy in the United States.  Three positions, two argued by opposite ends of the political spectrum and one in the middle, tend to be the most popular recently.  Each position however, has its flaws and the best resolution has nothing to do with the guns themselves, but with the people behind the trigger.

                The first opinion held by those of the extreme left is to do away with guns period, even though the banning of a freedom contrasts with the basic tenet of liberalism.  Liberalism believes in allowing the most rights to a citizen possible—liberals tend to be for decriminalizing drugs, keeping abortion legal, and proponents of gay marriage.  Yes, guns are dangerous but for some Americans they are also a way of life.  Some people in this country love to hunt with firearms, believe in them for a form of self-defense, or are just interested in the entire gun culture.  A true liberal is for the right for any citizen to practice any religion, they are not a proponent for banning religion.  That is also true with guns.  A liberal should encourage any qualified person to own a gun, not for the right to be rescinded.

                The liberals who take this position understand that a right—an Amendment actually—will be taken away.  However, they feel the ends justify the means.  England with strict gun laws has around 50 deaths per year caused by firearms, whereas the United States has 10,000.  England is just 1/5 the size of the United States in population and yet .05% less gun related death.  With this evidence it would seem like the obvious answer is to just remove the guns.  But there are lies, damn lies, and then statistics.  Switzerland, which conscripts a majority of men in their 20’s and 30’s into the militia, has up to 3 million guns in circulation and yet only 34 murders caused by firearms as reported in 2006.  Switzerland is an example that more accessibility to guns does not mean more gun-crimes.  So why should we restrict gun ownership at all?

                That is the opinion of the extreme right, that no rules should restrict the ownership of guns.  Americans should be able to buy any gun they want, and own as many as they want.  While some Americans who feel this way are genuine in their opinion, others, like the National Rifle Association, are pushing this agenda for their own economic interests.  When the NRA scares Americans that the government is trying to take away their guns, gun sales go up.  Make no mistake, the NRA’s main agenda is to increase gun sales.  That is why they fight tooth and nail against any form of gun restriction.  What is best for the country is not best for their interests, and so they are not interested in gun reform.  But with 10,000 deaths a year something has to be done.  But what should we do?

                The middle of the road opinion argues not for guns to be banned completely, but only certain types of guns, such as assaults rifles, 100-round clips, silencers, and extreme weaponry that is above the needs of hunting or personal defense for one’s home.  Deer hunters don’t need AK-47s, and a shotgun would be enough to protect your house, not an M-4 with SOPMOD kit.  However, this opinion truly ignores the intention of the 2^nd amendment.  We were not given the right as Americans to own guns for the sake of hunting or personal defense.  We were given the right to own guns to rise up against the government if necessary.  If that time should ever come, how could we ever be successful in overthrowing a tyrannical government, if we don’t have access to the best toys to fight back with?

                The real solution has nothing to do with the types of guns that can be bought, but the kind of people that can buy guns.  Switzerland proves that responsible people trained and prepared in owning a gun, can be responsible with a gun.  We have to instill that guns are only in the hands of responsible, law-abiding adults.  Laws that require background checks, only require that licensed gun sellers do background checks.  However, if you are at a tag sale or a “gun show” and unlicensed you can sell a gun to whoever you want.  Rational people of any political party should not have a problem with this.  If you fail a background check you should not be able to own a gun.  It should not take more information and research to attain a cell phone then to own a gun.  No one should be able to buy any type of gun, without any type of background check, and conversely anyone who passed a background check should be able to buy any type of gun.  To be against this reasonable precaution for something as powerful as a gun, is not someone arguing for the rights guaranteed in the 2^nd Amendment, but someone just arguing for the agenda of the NRA to allow more guns sales, without regard for responsibility of gun ownership.