In the wake of the tragedies in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio, gun control has once again entered the political discourse. Yet this time, the rhetoric takes a much more Orwellian turn. Privacy rights are now on the altar, soon to be sacrificed to the deity of progressive dogma surrounding gun control. And this time, Trump is the culprit.
Since the day Andrew Yang announced his outsider campaign for president, I have been a skeptical supporter. In a two-party landscape dominated by career politicians so hardwired that it can be difficult to know if they ever have a genuine thought of their own, Yang seemed sincere about the nature of his political process.
Yang’s radical pitch to give every American $1000 a month and the grassroots support he built online through meme culture and the spontaneous explosion of his YangGang crew signaled a humourous and organic addition that portrayed itself in stark contrast to the rest of the pale and robotic field.
Simply put, I liked Andrew Yang for the same reason I like Williamson, Gravel, Gabbard, and Trump. Each seems unabashedly honest about their positions and speak with a moral and philosophical conviction that is rare in our modern discourse.
We live in a post gun control world, and most of us don’t even know it. The current debate over gun control is simply a waste of time. The modern gun ownership landscape is misunderstood by the lawmakers, and by most of the media discussing it. We all want to decrease gun violence, but it feels like the solutions are all the same.
In the wake of national tragedy in Texas and Ohio, we have seen more of the same talking points from all the same talking heads: Common sense gun control. Mandatory buyback programs. Red flag laws. Bans on assault weapons.
There are deep flaws in each of these, but more importantly, none of these are realistic. We need to look at other solutions because guns are here, and they are here to stay.
With this year’s revision and destruction of famously libertarian Swiss gun laws, the world has started to look closer at the gun culture of Europe. Under threat of Schengen Area exclusion, the EU, which Switzerland is not a part of, changed their gun laws in order to fall more in line with barebones Union restrictions. Swiss gun laws are now stricter, requiring further background checks and more extensive licensing paperwork. However, they are still lawless in comparison to countries like the United Kingdom or Australia. But this investigation by those on the more libertarian side of the gun rights argument leads to the rediscovery of compulsory gun ownership both in Switzerland and in the United States.
In an article published by The Morning Call, Marlin Reinhart argues that the Second Amendment no longer serves a national purpose. He claims gun violence has reached epidemic proportions; this is why we need to reconsider the necessity of the Second Amendment. However, this is only looking at one side of the coin.