Discussing but not siding with various political opinions using reputable news sources from the last 6 months<\/p>\n
Those against the uncontrolled gun ownership argue that the weapons are used for various criminal activities and illegal hunting. Those against the practice question the logic behind gun ownership, where they are carried to the drinking places, classrooms, and sports arenas. On the other hand, the proponents of gun ownership argue that the weapons are used purely for self-defence and not any violent act. The political class has over the year differed on the issue, in the same way as the general public. The debate revolves around legislated control or personal responsibility. In what the media considers as \u2018a major political investment\u2019, Michael Bloomberg, former New York Mayor, \u201cplans to spend $50 million this year building a nationwide grass-roots network to motivate voters who feel strongly about curbing gun violence, an organization he hopes can eventually outmuscle the National Rifle Association\u201d (Peters, 2014). The approach by Bloomberg is to get grassroots support and push for more responsible gun use and more background checks before licensing. The approach is proactive and needs to be supported. However, the focus of the campaign is to outdo the National Rifle Association rather than tackling the root cause of the issue. A more balanced approach, managed by the law, should be adopted in gun control. While arming the civilians, the law should allow the authority to carry out thorough checks before any licensing. <\/p>\n
The second amendment of the American constitution encouraged more gun ownership and relaxed the laws. However, the debate on gun control has taken political dimension, Democrats against republicans. According to Peters (2014), \u201cBloomberg has already spent millions of dollars trying to persuade members of Congress to support enhanced background check laws with virtually nothing to show for it\u201d. There is need for political impartiality in dealing with the issue, beyond the second amendment, since the circumstances and context under which the amendment was enacted have changed. The amendment allowing gun ownership was passed when the county was experiencing security challenges after the American civil war. The citizens were more exposed due to the security threats posed by the armed rebels who had no formal command. Currently, the country has employed thousands of well trained and armed police officers. The country today has lesser threat that the unarmed citizens face in comparison to the 19th and the 20th centuries. The political antagonists need to realise the changed circumstances and enact the laws that require more background checks as proposed by Mr. Bloomberg. However, Mr. Bloomberg as a political figure may not rightfully lead the struggle for the changes as his views may be perceived negatively by those in the opposing camps. <\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Peter, J. (April 15, 2014). Bloomberg Plans a $50 Million Challenge to the N.R.A. Retrieved from nhttp:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/2014\/04\/16\/us\/bloomberg-plans-a-50-million-challenge-to-the-nra.html?_r=0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Discussing but not siding with various political opinions using reputable news sources from the last 6 months Those against the<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-37199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n