To: President Donald Trump, The Illinois State House, The Illinois State Senate, Governor J.B. Pritzker, The United States House of Representatives, and The United States Senate
Ban on ammunition
This calls for a ban on all traditional live metal ammunition and does not infringe on the right of Americans to bare arms.
Why is this important?
It is not really even a point of argument that the language in the second amendment is vague. “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.”
Militias were necessary for a quick assemblage of troops to fight off the tyrannical rule that was Britain.
Although the language is vague, if looked at in the context of the time period, it was interpreted with reason.
We continue to interpret the bill of rights with reason to this day. This is why it isn’t legal for citizens to own a grenade launcher. Owning a grenade launcher is not reasonable and that is something that most citizens could agree on and most would have to concede that the amendment has an implication of the people’s right to bear arms (within reason). This has to be true, if reason, health, and the well-being of the populace were taken out of the subtext and this amendment is to be read as strictly literal, then citizens should all be able to own rocket launchers, tanks, and if they can afford it, why not nuclear weapons?
Being that it is commonly understood that this amendment is meant to be practiced within reason. It is necessary to look at it within the context of what is reasonable this day and age.
The second amendment is specific in its language about the right to bear arms, but it is not specific in the right of what type of ammunition is to be used in those firearms. If one argues that it is also implied in the language of the second amendment that it is the right of citizens to bear arms for the means of self defense (a reasonable argument) then it could also be argued that live ammunition is not necessary in order for our firearms to be used in self-defense. Self-defense can be achieved through rubber bullets and bean bags loaded into guns instead of live ammunition. It has been proven that rubber bullets and bean bags, (which can still be considered lethal) can be used effectively, successfully, and with far less cases of death, than live ammunition. If the sale of live ammunition for handguns, semiautomatic weapons, and assault rifles were banned, citizens could still defend themselves with less lethal means. A ban on live ammunition would diminish instances of accidental gun deaths (which account for more deaths than justifiable gun homicides).
What is not reasonable is allowing handguns, or semiautomatic weapons and assault rifles as acceptable to be used with a justification of self defense when they are more often not used for self-defense. There were 6,115 handgun homicides in 2010 and 11,078 total homicides from all types of guns including handguns. While there were only 617 instances of justifiable homocides . (These numbers have not changed significantly since then.) This means that for out every 18 gun homicides, only 1 was justifiable. This shows that these weapons are not mainly used for self-defense.
If we compare the murder rates in the United States to that of England (a country with a ban on guns), our murder rate is counted between 4 to 10 times higher, percentagewise, in the United States. Even if we take the lower percentage in the homicide rate in England, that means that the United States could potentially lower our murder rate by as much as 75% at the low end. 75% of about 11,000 people is more than 7,500 lives that could be saved each year if guns were banned completely. This petition does not even call for a complete ban of arms, which would be unconstitutional. It calls for a ban on live ammunition for arms designed mainly for killing people.
Self defense can be obtained through arms that are not solely meant for killing people. A hunting rifle or shotgun or even a taser can be used for self defense and can also be loaded with rubber bullets and bean bags and be just as effective as scaring off, injuring, or even lethally wounding an intruder. This petition is for a ban on live ammunition for handguns, semiautomatic weapons, assault rifles, or any weapon designed mainly to kill people (hunting rifles and shotguns excluded). This ban extends to citizens and police officers except for special law enforcement units (SWAT teams) like the AFO (Authorized Firearms Officers) in England. This is also a call for a ban on assault rifles (other than those that are already registered lawfully). No new assault rifles. The same weapons bought and kept for the justification of militias and self-defense are much more often used to the detriment of society.
Works cited:
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html
Gun stats
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-24/u-k-gun-curbs-mean-more-violence-yet-fewer-deaths-than-in-u-s-.html
http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
Militias were necessary for a quick assemblage of troops to fight off the tyrannical rule that was Britain.
Although the language is vague, if looked at in the context of the time period, it was interpreted with reason.
We continue to interpret the bill of rights with reason to this day. This is why it isn’t legal for citizens to own a grenade launcher. Owning a grenade launcher is not reasonable and that is something that most citizens could agree on and most would have to concede that the amendment has an implication of the people’s right to bear arms (within reason). This has to be true, if reason, health, and the well-being of the populace were taken out of the subtext and this amendment is to be read as strictly literal, then citizens should all be able to own rocket launchers, tanks, and if they can afford it, why not nuclear weapons?
Being that it is commonly understood that this amendment is meant to be practiced within reason. It is necessary to look at it within the context of what is reasonable this day and age.
The second amendment is specific in its language about the right to bear arms, but it is not specific in the right of what type of ammunition is to be used in those firearms. If one argues that it is also implied in the language of the second amendment that it is the right of citizens to bear arms for the means of self defense (a reasonable argument) then it could also be argued that live ammunition is not necessary in order for our firearms to be used in self-defense. Self-defense can be achieved through rubber bullets and bean bags loaded into guns instead of live ammunition. It has been proven that rubber bullets and bean bags, (which can still be considered lethal) can be used effectively, successfully, and with far less cases of death, than live ammunition. If the sale of live ammunition for handguns, semiautomatic weapons, and assault rifles were banned, citizens could still defend themselves with less lethal means. A ban on live ammunition would diminish instances of accidental gun deaths (which account for more deaths than justifiable gun homicides).
What is not reasonable is allowing handguns, or semiautomatic weapons and assault rifles as acceptable to be used with a justification of self defense when they are more often not used for self-defense. There were 6,115 handgun homicides in 2010 and 11,078 total homicides from all types of guns including handguns. While there were only 617 instances of justifiable homocides . (These numbers have not changed significantly since then.) This means that for out every 18 gun homicides, only 1 was justifiable. This shows that these weapons are not mainly used for self-defense.
If we compare the murder rates in the United States to that of England (a country with a ban on guns), our murder rate is counted between 4 to 10 times higher, percentagewise, in the United States. Even if we take the lower percentage in the homicide rate in England, that means that the United States could potentially lower our murder rate by as much as 75% at the low end. 75% of about 11,000 people is more than 7,500 lives that could be saved each year if guns were banned completely. This petition does not even call for a complete ban of arms, which would be unconstitutional. It calls for a ban on live ammunition for arms designed mainly for killing people.
Self defense can be obtained through arms that are not solely meant for killing people. A hunting rifle or shotgun or even a taser can be used for self defense and can also be loaded with rubber bullets and bean bags and be just as effective as scaring off, injuring, or even lethally wounding an intruder. This petition is for a ban on live ammunition for handguns, semiautomatic weapons, assault rifles, or any weapon designed mainly to kill people (hunting rifles and shotguns excluded). This ban extends to citizens and police officers except for special law enforcement units (SWAT teams) like the AFO (Authorized Firearms Officers) in England. This is also a call for a ban on assault rifles (other than those that are already registered lawfully). No new assault rifles. The same weapons bought and kept for the justification of militias and self-defense are much more often used to the detriment of society.
Works cited:
http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html
Gun stats
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-24/u-k-gun-curbs-mean-more-violence-yet-fewer-deaths-than-in-u-s-.html
http://smartgunlaws.org/category/gun-studies-statistics/gun-violence-statistics/
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home