Speech
The
second amendments empower each American citizen to own a gun. Therefore, any
efforts to change these provisions must include a plebiscite. The United States
has a history of gun violence, and efforts have been suggested to improve
public safety (Nakamura & Eilperin, 2016). The shooting in Inland Research
Center San Bernardino where over 26 civilians infuriated President Obama and
offered the opportunity for him to push for tighter gun control. The president
suggested issuing executive orders that called for tighter control in the gun
acquisition, including expanded background search on buyers (Nakamura & Eilperin,
2016). The suggestions by the president met a lot of resistance and criticism,
especially from groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA),
Republicans among others. The paper will discuss the critique of President
Obama speech on gun violence following shootings at San Bernardino.
One
natural right that cannot be taken away from any individual is the freedom to
self-preservation. The stressing point here is that humans have a right to take
steps that secure their families and properties. The framers of the
constitution especially the enactment of the second amendments had the idea of
self-preservation in mind. Therefore, they made it a right for every citizen of
the United States to bear arms. Obama executive order and the suggested expanded
background search would simply stifle the provisions of the second amendments
and constrain the rights of the citizens (Nakamura & Eilperin, 2016). By
all consideration, the legality of such an order should only be determined
through a referendum. In other words, Americans should be allowed to vote on
whether they want to retain the right to bear arm or not. Such freedoms can
never be the discretion of the president.
Norway
citizens are far more armed than the Americans. The citizens carry even military
grade assault rifle, yet the rate of gun violence is insignificant compared to
America. The trigger point for the President threat on the executive order was
the shooting at San Bernardino, which was determined to be terrorists in
nature. Therefore, it would look like the president was suggesting the country
could fight the terrorists better by disarming the public. Perhaps at this
point, it is important to look at Republican candidate for the presidency
(Donald Trump) asked. What if the victims at the time of the attack were armed? (Nakamura
& Eilperin, 2016). Probably they could have defended themselves and stopped
the carnage. The point makes sense, the initial repulse of the assault could
have held back the attacker until the law enforcement officers arrived.
Restraining
the rights of the Americans to own guns through the executive order would not
address the problem of gun violence at all. For example, the participants in
the San Bernardino shootings were apparently inspired by terrorist ideologies.
Therefore, the efforts of the government should be geared towards reducing the
radicalization of the youths. Unless such steps are taken, withdrawing guns
from the civilians will just be superficial to the problem at hand (Nakamura
& Eilperin, 2016). Criminals such as religious terrorists will still find a way to violate
the law and access the guns. The poignant point here is that Obama policies
should be focused on eliminating terrorists’ radical ideas from American Muslim
youths.
Gun
violence expands beyond the terrorist attacks such as San Bernardino. The
neighborhoods in areas such as Brooklyn are very unsafe due to gangs. In fact,
gangs in the American cities constitutes a bigger danger when it comes to gun
violence than the terrorists. Police
have over the years failed to eliminate gangs in towns. Mostly, the African Americans and Latinos are
assumed to either be in drug dealings or gangs. The result of this presumption
is that African Americans and the Latinos have been unfairly targeted in the
fight against gangs. Statistics shows that majority of the people in prison and
are blacks and Latinos. However, despite the high incarceration rate, gangs
have not been wiped from the neighborhoods (Nakamura & Eilperin, 2016). The
President should focus on giving opportunities to the black American so that
they can fathom a life outside gangs that mean, increasing the high school and
college graduation rates among the minority groups. Eventually, by empowering
these minority groups, the incidences of the guns violence committed by gangs
could significantly drop. A better approach compared snatching guns from the
Americans is essential.
What I Felt Regarding the Speech
I
believe Obama’s speech was a big relief to American citizens. Gang attacks
arouse untold fear and disrupt freedom in a given state. However, it is evident that president Obama
speech on gun violence following the shootings at San Bernardino
is driven by emotions rather than the constitution. It is understandable that
the president was infuriated by the senseless loss of lives and the injuries
that were caused
(Nakamura & Eilperin, 2016). However, it is upon the president to
uphold and respect the Constitution. Therefore, despite the understandable
anger, his executive order must adhere to the constitution. I perceive that failure to comply with the
provisions of the law could have set the grounds for his impeachment.
In
conclusion, America has experienced many gun violence cases some involving
injuries and death of the minors. However, the provision of the constitution
should be followed. I feel that the president should not use the executive
order to take away the rights of the Americans to bear arms. Instead, security
agencies should just do more to protect the Americans from criminal gangs.
Reference
Nakamura, D. & Eilperin, J.
(2016). Obama details executive action on gun restrictions. The Washington Post. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to- unveil-new-gun-restrictions-slams-congress-for-inaction/2016/01/04/81d539e8-b2fb- 11e5-a842-0feb51d1d124_story.html?utm_term=.d17d030cae92
No comments:
Post a Comment