Amidst the aggressive controversy over firearms, the predominantly Republican House in Florida has voted to pass a bill that establishes restrictions upon the possession of firearms. The tallies were astonishing: “Of 76 House Republicans, 57 voted in favor of the bill, with 19 against it.”
Simply spoken, 57 out of the 76 Republicans in the house voted to pass a bill stating that 1) “A person younger than 21 years of age may not purchase a firearm”, 2) bump stocks must be prohibited, and 3) some citizens need have their right to bear arms restricted by “providing a judicial procedure for law enforcement officers to obtain a court order temporarily restricting a person’s access to firearms and ammunition… to reduce deaths and injuries as a result of certain individuals’ use of firearms while respecting constitutional rights.”
Under what conditions are depriving a citizen’s right to possess firearms a demonstration of respect towards constitutional rights? While the bill claims to acknowledge due process, it also justifies depriving a citizen’s ability to possess any form of firearm or ammunition for up to a year.
The utterly preposterous prerequisites set forth in the bill to justify a Citizen’s deprivation of the right to bear arms extends from having had any previous case of domestic violence within the past, to any display or open carrying of a firearm, to evidence suggesting the use of substances or alcohol. These points serve as a dangerously slippery slope, that inevitably provides an opportunity for the exploitation of the American citizenry by an overbearing federal government.
The primary point of irony within this argument in the bill is the fact that it was not the fault of an inanimate object that caused psychotic, homicidal criminal Nikolas Cruz to go on a mass shooting- it was solely permitted by the gross negligence of both the FBI, who failed to engage in a thorough investigation even after receiving information on Cruz’s increasingly unstable demeanor, and Law Enforcement, that failed to properly address the situation with Cruz, despite being called to his residence 39 times in the span of 7 years. This is indicative that law enforcement cannot be considered a reliable answer to problems of mental instability.
Why, then, would we ever display an even greater degree of confidence in law enforcement to confiscate our weapons to provide a false sense of security?
On a national scale, the same authoritarian mentality is being mirrored; the the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled that Maryland’s ban of 45 different weapons classified as “ assault weapons” and restriction of magazines to a small capacity of only 10 rounds is justified. Despite the fact that the Constitution blatantly states that “The right of the People to bear arms shall not be infringed”, those rights are indeed under explicit infringement, by the party that was expected to protect them.
Ultimately, one realization need be acknowledged: It is not the concern of parties, but the duty of the people, which preserves our Constitutional Rights- by protest, and direct opposition to a tyrannical government, if necessary. The day that the federal government establishes a strict prohibition on firearms, is the day that the next American Revolution will begin.