And, while we’re at it, if Democrats want to lower the voting age to 16 shouldn’t they allow 16-year olds to buy guns?
The New Mexico Legislature passed a universal background check bill Tuesday mimicking the US House of Representatives passage last month of HR 8. The rationale for both resides in the assumption that universal background checks will deter criminals and save lives. As with several other states in recent days, some New Mexico county sheriffs have announced that they will refuse to enforce the new law on constitutional grounds. Why? Why not? Which side should prevail, the pro-gun “party” or the pro-gun control “Party?”
Generally speaking, Republicans lean heavily as the pro-gun party, while the Democrats prefer to be known as the gun control party. Republicans support disarming criminals. Democrats, generally, seem to prefer letting criminals stay armed with deadly force and thus a threat to unarmed Americans throughout the country.
Before some readers of that statement get their underwear twisted, hear us out.
New Mexico, in our example, has a population of just over 2 million half of which live in just three cities, Albuquerque with roughly 560,000 residents, Las Cruces with 100,000 residents, and Santa Fe with 85,000 residents. That’s about less than half of the state’s total population. Let’s assume that half of the population vote Democratic and the other half vote Republican; that could mean the Republican half live in the less populated 30 out of the 33 New Mexico counties. Should majority rule? If so, 3 counties hold the most votes in the state’s legislature. Remember, this is just a theoretical example.
Generally speaking, most crime occurs where most people live, i.e., in the bigger cities…where most of the legislature’s votes originate. Theoretically then, state house legislators have the edge when it comes to controlling crime and criminals. There is generally less crime in less populated counties where residents feel free to protect themselves with the support of county sheriffs. County sheriffs generally support the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, we surmise that the less populated Republican counties and their sheriffs that provide protection for their citizens prefer teaming their resources with self-defense and self-protection-leaning citizens while disarming criminals. The more heavily populated counties – those which are represented by Democrats – prefer allowing criminals to remain armed while keeping the citizens they are charged with protecting, disarmed.
Doesn’t that sound like a political disconnect? We’d be interested in hearing Democrats – in New Mexico and elsewhere – explain why they’re against disarming criminals and, instead, keeping the law abiding citizens in their state disarmed. Wouldn’t you?
Just as pondering, House Democrats in Washington are offering amendments to a voting rights bill, HR 1, that would allow 16 year olds the right to vote. While they couch their reasoning in reference to “young constituents” of the Parkland school shooting as having “been at the forefront of the March for Our Lives Movement to stem the tide of gun violence, It is young people…who march, organize, and remind us daily in the halls of this institution (Congress) what’s at stake and just how high those stakes are,” said Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA). A colleague from New York pointed to student gun control activists in making her argument for 16-year-olds to vote this way: “It is only right and fair to allow 16- and 17-year-olds a voice in our democracy.” Good on her. Now let’s add to that not raising the age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 but lowering that age to 16. Fair Is fair, right?
Reply to this commentary by email to email@example.com