As an economic conservative and social liberal, it is not uncommon for me to agree with members of both parties at once. But it is rife for me to loathe members of both parties, and find ignorance in both sides of a debate. With the proposal of new laws this week by the President, I feel that it is a fitting time to talk about the debate.

I should warn you now that this post may sound like a rant. This is because this post is a rant.

Notice I said this is a fitting time because of the proposed laws, NOT because of the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook. I equate gun control measures solving heinous acts like the one in CT to shutting down Boeing to prevent a repeat of 9/11. Making laws against the legal possession of guns to do illegal things doesn’t solve anything. The issue of increased mass murders in this country is one of a different color; it requires a change in society to increase safety in schools, improve our detection of warning signs, and work to understand why psychopaths exist.

This brings me to my issue with what the president signed today. He proposed measures to increase regulations on high powered assault weapons and large magazines, both excellent ideas, as the laws used to be stricter before 2004. There is simply no reason for a citizen of the free world to require an assault weapon. I have no problem with the proposition. I have many problems with the manner in which it was done.

First, he held a press conference to watch him sign a bill, as if he was changing laws from the oval office. This is not what happened, he simply proposed a bill for Congress to debate about for six months before they decide to continue to do nothing (like they always do). Second, he did this with four young children standing behind him, sending the message to the American people that he was there to save these kids, and the children all across the country. Today was not about the principle of the laws for Obama, it was about the image he wanted to send the American people: The President is solving all of our gun problems and signing into law the safety of our children.

However, concerning the principle of the gun control debate, I cannot stand the ignorance of some people’s views on their rights involving guns. Though I believe that private citizens in a free nation have the right to bear arms, it must be admitted that the second amendment is outdated. Written in the Bill of Rights, the second amendment was added to give the people of the United States the right to protect themselves from a tyrannical Government, and was essential to the existence of a standing militia. Nowadays, even the word militia is outdated, and no gun in your home will protect you from an attack by the US Government. They have drones that roam the skies; not a fair fight.

Yet, there are some narrow-minded individuals who vehemently fight for their ability to own entirely unnecessary arsenal of weaponry and have this fabricated belief that Obama is “after their guns.” And I’m not calling the NRA ignorant or gun owners foolish, I own one myself. Gun control laws are not unconstitutional, as they claim. They are a necessity. Guns are a man-made object. We created guns, so we must do whatever we can to control their immense power.

So, what do you guys think? How do the politics of gun control relate to those of tragedies such as Aurora, CO and Sandy Hook, CT? Is the president playing politics? And the ultimate question: do guns kill people, or do people kill people?

I used article content and comments from a CNN article here:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/16/politics/guns-congress/index.html?hpt=po_c1