Sir, What Is Your Motive To Purchase That Gun?

The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

            On Wednesday February 15^th, the Senate voted to repel a regulation created by the Social Security Administration to prevent certain mentally ill people from purchasing firearms. This is a two-month-old regulation, barely enough time to notice any merits or complications. With increased conversations on school and public shootings, like Sandy Hook, and terrorism, this shift brings many things into question. It questions safety, security, mental healthy, protection of rights and interpretation of the second amendment.

            Those for repealing, argue that the regulation is too broad and takes away the second amendment right of law-abiding and non-violent citizens. Those against repealing, state that the Social Security Administration does not specify that only citizens who have qualified for disability due to a mental disorder and are unable to manage their own affairs and function on their own would be reported into the background check database.

            This issue opens the door for two separate issues: mental health in the United States and violence in the United States. Very rarely are the National Rifle Association (NRA0 and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on the same side. But, in this case, the NRA believes this regulation restricts second amendment rights and the ACLU believes this will only promote mental illness stereotypes and stigma. Such regulations beg the questions: are we building systems that help mental health? Are we building systems that prevent gun violence?

            So what stops people from being allowed to legally purchase a gun? Currently, “age, being under indictment on a crime punishable by a year in prison or convicted of a similar offense, current restraining orders by a partner or child, being convicted of domestic violence, being a fugitive, user of controlled substances, or currently committed to a mental institution.” This all makes sense for one reason or the other.

            There are red flags that pop up in background checks, but unfortunately, not everything goes reported. Domestic violence, drug use, and mental health issues are not necessarily reported and therefore are untraceable. A preventative measure would be to create a clear psychological evaluation regardless of one’s health status. It is my understanding that the second amendment states that U.S. citizens are allowed to bear arms. I think we often forget that the second amendment was written in a different time and had a different definition of arms than it has today. Weapons were not nearly as advanced.

            With the growth in technology, laws have not been able to keep up, but that is a whole other issue. When it comes to defense and safety, there has to be rules in place to protect us from ourselves. Arms were not what they are today- not nearly as powerful or deadly and therefore, should not be handled lightly. Is it infringing to ask why a person is purchasing a gun? I think not.

            Having protocols and preventing possible violence through asking questions is not inconvenient or inappropriate; it is simply intelligent. It is a process that in the best-case scenario helps the person being vetted. There are better ways to create safety than going on the offense and pointing guns. We can do better. We should do better.