Article link: http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_28974167/gavin-newsom-propose-sweeping-gun-control-ballot-measure?source=infinite-up
Summary: Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and a group of activists are pushing for harsher gun control laws for the 2016 ballot. California already has strict gun laws, for example: a 10-day waiting period for all firearm purchases, an assault weapons ban, and a ban on making and selling magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. California enacted its assault weapons ban in 1989, but those who already owned the banned guns and magazines were allowed to register and keep them. The new law would require owners to turn outlawed magazines into police for destruction, sell them to a licensed firearms dealer, or move them out of the state. Newsom's measure also would require licensing of ammunition sellers and background checks for all ammunition purchases. It would also require firearm owners to notify law enforcement if their firearm has been lost or stolen.
I think that in this particular case, government has no other choice than to take our gun related items if it will help further safety in the US. Recently there have been so many deaths involving the use of firearms and at this point, the government has to protect the general safety, no matter the measure. I think that restricting the use of guns will prevent mass shootings. If people with pronounced mental issues aren't given the right to purchase guns, it will help. Although not everyone with mental issues will be distinguished, preventing those with obvious issues will definitely make an impact.
ReplyDeleteI think that for a general principle, it is not okay for the government to take our property and destroy it, but, of course, there are exceptions to every rule. In this case the safety and well-being of society as a whole is much more important than the ownership of guns of a few people. To me, the second amendment allows guns for the purposes of a "well-regulated militia," which don't exist today, meaning that guns can and should be restricted. I think that giving up some individual rights will help protect us because the fewer guns there are the few shootings and killings can occur. Without a doubt, there is a serious gun problem in America and all the actions (or lack thereof) have been ineffective, so a new approach like the one Newsom is proposing is necessary. With more thorough background checks to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or criminals and the restriction of military-level firearms (as there is no need for a citizen to have such advanced weaponry), there will be less gun-related violence.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's right for you're personal belongings to be taken and destroyed, even if now it's illegal. That means they take your cars that you payed for that didn't pass the smog test before. It's violating the ex post facto law because it was legal then, and you can't be penalized for it. The more gun control laws, the more violence there will be. Naturally when people are told they can't do something, they want to do it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the government’s decision to enact this new gun law is a good idea, however, it is controversial because it can be taken as “going against the second amendment.” The guns are technically the property of the individual and this new gun law “requires owners to turn outlawed magazines and guns to the police for destruction”. Similar to Newsom, I believe that we need harsher gun laws to prevent mass shootings. Although this plan sounds like a great idea, this won’t stop people from illegally getting guns and magazines. Furthermore, it’s not guns that kill people, it’s the person that pulls the trigger that is dangerous; and because of this, I think that the government should invest in mandatory gun classes where owners would be informed on how to use guns safely and responsibly.
ReplyDeleteIn theory, the government should not be able to take away a citizens property. But, in light of all of the recent gun violence, I think there should be more monitoring and control over the use and posession of firearms. In my opinion, the second amendment is outdated and no longer relevant and necessary in todays society. I cannot see how more gun control would do anything other than lower the violence. I think this is necessary and will cause a lot of positive change.
ReplyDeleteI think in this particular situation the government should have the power to take citizens' guns, even if they are private property. Although it is technically infringing on the second amendment, I believe this law is necessary for the safety and well being of the public. I do agree with Newsom's idea of needing harsher gun laws because of the recent shootings and the accessibility to guns in this country. However, people will still be able to obtain guns illegally, and in order to help the situation I believe the government should also invest in mandatory requirements and classes that all gun owners should take. In addition, each gun owner should have a thorough background check before being able to receive a gun.
ReplyDeleteOverall the government should not be able to take citizens properties, but guns are the exception. The government is infringing individual citizens rights to help America's general well being. Clearly creating stricter gun laws would decrease mass shootings. Stricter gun laws doesn't necessarily mean citizens will be stripped of their rights to bear arms, it could simply mean a more thorough background check.
ReplyDeleteWith all the gun violence occurring today, I believe it is within the government's rights to push for gun control. It is a responsibility of the government to protect the safety of others and provide for the well-being of society; if guns are infringing on that, stricter laws should be upheld. Newsom's ideas are a good start to restrict gun violence, but one act of legislation is not going to be the key, it's going to be a long process.
ReplyDeleteIn this example, I feel that it is ok for the government to destroy property. It seems unfair, but to me it is right. These guns are harmful to society, so destroying things that are now against the law is allowed. For me destroying these magazines is like destroying an out of date idea. This gun idea is like the backlash Germany faced against the Nazi Regime. As a result they outlawed Nazi symbols, papers, and other things that they had. To me it is a natural progression. Guns are harmful to society so getting rid of them is normal. The second amendment does not help the gun owners, it says you can own guns and have a well regulated militia. The American government is just limiting the death power that guns have. No right is being infringed. On the topic, they should recycle them. that is a lot of magazines.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that it is acceptable for government to take your property and destroy it? Is this infringing the second amendment? Do you think that giving up rights as a citizen will protect us? Do you agree with Newsom about needing harsher gun laws to prevent mass shootings? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteI personally believe the government has no right to take your property, however guns are extremely dangerous and should be removed by the government for the safety of others. I also believe that the 2nd amendment is outdated and should be reevaluated. I believe replacing rights with security measures is best as well and for this reason I also agree with Newsom since gun control has proven to be very effective in other countries such as Australia.
First of all, I both agree and disagree with Newsom's ideas on reforming gun control. No, I personally do not believe that it is ok to be forced to give up your property for destruction. If citizens were allowed to keep their outlawed guns simply by registering them, they should be able to keep their outlawed magazines. I understand the idea that a magazine that holds more rounds means that it is easier to potentially shoot more people before reloading, and decreasing magazine size thus decreases numbers of victims, or so they think, but that is not the issue at hand. The true issue at hand is that disturbed individuals who obviously need some for of help have decided to kill people. It is not a gun problem, It is easy to pretend that it's somehow the weapons fault and that restricting it will reduce mass shootings. But it is a human problem. It is hard to face the fact that we, as humans, can be truly at fault for something like this. However, I do agree with the idea that background checks and notifying police of stolen firearms should be enforced. It only seems logical. These requirements are by no means outrageous and are only there for the safety of the public.
ReplyDelete