Gun Violence Prevention Laws: An Examination of Their Merits and Considerations
Shocking Revelation: Meg Froelich's Controversial Gun Laws Spark Heated Debate – Find Out What Marla Fernandez Thinks!
- Marla Fernandez
- October 6, 2023
- 8:49 pm
Meg Froelich’s argument and the gun violence prevention laws presented in https://villagerpublishing.com/gun-violence-prevention-laws-go-into-effect/ have some merits, but they also have some flaws and counterarguments to consider. Let’s take a look:
1. Waiting Periods for Firearm Purchases:
Argument: Meg Froelich and other sponsors argue that waiting periods for purchasing firearms can save lives by preventing impulsive acts of violence and suicides.
I argue that while the government wants to interpose itself and keep society safe, that it is overstepping it’s jurisdiction to do so: While waiting periods may delay access to firearms, determined individuals can still find alternative means to acquire them. Criminals, for instance, are unlikely to abide by waiting periods and may resort to illegal channels to obtain firearms creating a black market. In such cases, waiting periods may not have the intended effect of reducing gun violence.
Second counterargument: Waiting periods may inconvenience law-abiding citizens who require firearms for self-defense or other legitimate reasons. Delays in obtaining a firearm during an emergency situation could potentially jeopardize their safety.
Third counterargument: The effectiveness of waiting periods can vary depending on the individual’s circumstances. It is not a one-size-fits-all solution to address the complex issue of gun violence, as the causes of gun violence are multifaceted and often involve deeper societal and mental health issues.
Lastly, the role of government is to protect our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and protect our unalienable rights giving to the the people by God before this government was created. Thus, any law that goes against the first 10 Amendments renders the law NULL AND VOID.
The governments duty is to protect the peoples unalienable rights. The people have a right to secure their own safety.
2. Lawsuits Against the Firearm Industry:
Argument: The sponsors argue that removing immunity protections for firearm industry members will allow legitimate lawsuits to hold them accountable for irresponsible business practices.
I argue: The firearm industry should not be held liable for the criminal misuse of their products. Holding manufacturers or sellers liable for the actions of individuals misusing firearms could have unintended consequences, such as driving manufacturers out of business or reducing the availability of firearms for lawful purposes. It also violates the Constitutional premise that government must protect life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and must not deprive any person of his life or liberty or property. Holding the business owners accountable for unintended misuse deprives the business owner of his ability to pursue his happiness and deprives his property (the business he owns) the ability to provide for himself.
Second counterargument: The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was enacted to protect the firearm industry from frivolous lawsuits. Removing these protections could lead to an influx of lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers, potentially overwhelming the legal system and diverting resources away from addressing the root causes of gun violence. The Root causes of sic “gun violence” is the government perverting the education system with Marxist ideology that converts children into immoral and dumb humans unable to access their free will and choose a life of virtue.
Third counterargument: Focusing on legal action against the firearm industry may distract from efforts to address gun violence through comprehensive measures, such as mental health support, education, and community-based programs. And the fact that the teachers unions have been dumbing Americans for over 100 years in order to create a Godless society.
In conclusion, while Meg Froelich’s arguments and the gun violence prevention laws have the goal of reducing gun violence and promoting public safety, they also have potential flaws and counterarguments that need to be carefully considered. Addressing gun violence requires a multifaceted approach that takes into account the complex factors contributing to this issue, rather than relying solely on waiting periods and legal actions against the firearm industry.
Meg Froelich should work with her constituent Marla Fernandez to ensure that the gun violence prevention laws are well-informed by the perspectives and concerns of the community they aim to protect.