In the 20th century, governments around the world murdered over one hundred seventy million of their own people after they denied citizens the right to the ownership of guns (Macy, 2012). Now, we live in a country where there are a myriad of parties that each support different aspects of gun ownership and gun control. Those who are pro-ownership want citizens to be allowed to own guns. Those who are pro-carry agree and state that citizens should also be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Those who are pro-ban oppose both of the other parties and believe that citizens should be denied ownership of a firearm. This is conceived from an idea of false security and is completely nonsensical. Any and all American citizens, who meet basic requirements, should be allowed to purchase, possess, carry, and conceal a firearm if they so choose. The constitution of the United States supports this argument.
The second amendment to the United States Constitution asserts, “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.” This amendment can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but no matter how it is interpreted, there is no denial that the constitution declares that the right to own a gun shall not be infringed. The authors of this document, which creates the whole foundation of American society, realized that this is an important right that would one day need defending. That day has come and unfortunately citizens must defend their right to bear arms to their own government and fellow citizens. In order to do so, citizens need to point out that guns have various purposes and there are multiple reasons for ownership.
While firearms are sometimes use...
... middle of paper ...
...r arguments have no value and their claims have been falsified numerous times. Pro-gun rights and pro-carry parties continue to plead for loosened restrictions in order to better their efforts of protection and self-defense. Before you choose your stance, consider this; if faced with a situation where a life was in jeopardy- whether it was yours, one of your family members, or a complete strangers- would you rather stand there, idle and unable to control the situation while a helpless victim died or would you rather stop the attacker by disabling them? The harsh truth is, when a government cannot protect its citizens, the citizens must protect themselves. In a time where new victims are murdered daily, the government is not always able to come to the rescue. Will you choose to exercise your right to carry a gun or will you wait to fall victim to a criminal with one?