I keep my gun under my shirt. All the time.

A recent editorial in the New York Times brought a little measure known as the ‘Thune amendment,’ slyly attached to the military’s budget legislature. The effect of this amendment would radically reduce, if not eliminate, existing gun laws handled on a State by State basis. I feel that this amendment, just as this editorial claims, is a terrible idea. I’m actually quite shocked something like this would even be considered.

The main argument in support of the bill is that the increased ability to protect one’s self will yield a decrease in the amount of crime. The editorial counters that the ability to carry concealed will increase the number of concealed firearms in the hands of those irresponsible to use them. I can’t agree more. The Bill of Rights may guarantee our right to bear arms in protection of ourselves but the times, as well as firearms, people, and the nature of crimes have changed. A concealed weapon is an immense responsibility. It allows you to carry around the ability to at any moment cause immense harm to any individual around you, without anyone being the wiser. If I remember correctly, the existence of government is to protect individual’s rights from other individuals and groups, exactly what concealed carry laws do. They set a type of standard for who is considered acceptable to bear that responsibility. A standard that should be left to individuals living in common areas, say like States.

The editorial also argues that the amendment would cause difficulties in determining the legality of a gun. Interactions with police officers would then be greatly increased in danger for both participants. Officers would have to be more prepared to deal with firearms, leaving their safety in question (as if it isn’t in enough already) and the officer more on edge. Interactions with citizens would then be more pressured and dangerous for both parties.

In my opinion the article itself is very well prepared. The members of the NY Times editorial board did an excellent job of positioning the article in a way that targeted the average citizen while not alienating those concerned with gun rights. Their credibility is quite high (as a nationally read newspaper) and their argument’s points and organization support that. Much of the editorial is devoted to checkable facts and sound reasoning behind their case.