Skip to content

New Here?

Another Voice: Objections to reasonable restrictions don’t hold up

April 16, 2013


By Amy Wallace, The Buffalo News – Opinion

I have heard every argument in the gun control debate from gun rights activists, including the argument that criminals won’t follow new gun laws anyway, so why have them.

If that is truly the case, then why have any laws at all? The very nature of the word criminal is someone who breaks the law. So should we just abolish the laws against murder, rape and theft, too, if the criminals are just going to do what they want to anyway?

Our judicial system is there to work as a deterrent to future crimes. The system has its flaws, of course, but it is the reason we live in a civilized society and not chaos.

The next argument about taking away your Second Amendment rights is also unfounded.

Scalia1-new403The full text of the Second Amendment reads: “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.”

Why do so many leave out that first part of the sentence? Is it because they are not a well-regulated militia and they are not necessary in securing a free state?

Also, the argument that the rights in the amendment cannot ever be touched because it is in our Constitution is unfounded. There are limitations to many amendments in the Constitution.

In the First Amendment, free speech is subject to limitations for obscenity and speech that would incite violence. The Second Amendment already has limits as to bans on fully automatic weapons. Background checks are already in place in some form.

Click to see the entire story and local comments.

Amy Wallace is the Buffalo and Western New York chapter leader of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

If you're a member of the media, please send inquiries to [email protected]