“I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it”. -- Clint Eastwood This nation was built on the right to bear arms, but this freedom is more controversial than ever. With all the school shootings and gun violence in America today at some point it may seem that just too take away all guns may be the answer to this problem. In defense, this is not the answer. If someone wants to commit a crime, gun laws will not stop them from obtaining the weapon. It is like a drug. Drugs are illegal, but every day you see someone either with, on, or recovering from a drug habit. What about for defense right to own guns to protect your family if part of your constitutional rights. Rights that are supposed to be unalienable rights. Although in this day in time, they are always trying to take away guns either by trying to pass laws or taxing guns and ammo which almost makes guns unaffordable for middle class normal American families. One of the first documents of the ownership of weapons was King Henry’s II of England law the English Assize of Arms of 1181 which allowed every non slave or non- imprisoned man access to a weapon (Alters 1). Even back in those times, they were given the right by the king to protect themself in time of emergency. This right has been important since guns were made back in the black powder times. In 1783 the Revolutionary War ended; this called for the country to have its set of rules after separating from England. In 1787, thirty-nine leaders of the nation gathered in Philadelphia to sign the Constitution. The second amendment says four main facts: the right to the individual possession of arms, the fear of a professional army, the dependence on militias regulat... ... middle of paper ... ...n guns and will still be long after now. Works Cited Cothran, Helen. Gun Control. San Diego, California: Greenhaven INC, 2003. Print. "Gun Control." Just Facts. Just Facts., 11 7 13. Web. 13 Nov 2013. Jones, Neven, and Neven Jones. "Professors gives pros, cons ofgun laws at weekly Hot Potato." 10 17 13: n. page. Print. ‘The History of the right to bear arms.’ “Gun Control: Restricting Rights or Protecting People? Sandra M. Altters. 2009 ed. Detroit: Gale, 2009. Information Plus Reference Series. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. Nov. 2013. “An Updated Background Check System Will Prevent Gun Violence.” Guns and Crime” Ed. Christine Watkins. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At issue. Rpt. From “ A Plan to Prevent Future Tragedies.” MayorsAgainstIllegalGuns.org. 2011. Opposing Viewpoints in Contex. Web.8Nov.2013
“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” is stated in the United States Constitution as the Second Amendment. Several Americans wish to rid of guns from citizens, disobeying and disrespecting the Constitution. I shot my first gun when I was young and have always been surrounded by them. My neighbor does not leave the house without carrying one, nor does my eighteen year old friend. Never once have I felt unsafe or uneasy knowing that there was a gun close to me. The right to bare arms has become a popular local battle in which some people want to reduce the freedom of one owning firearms while others wish for the
For hundreds of years Americans have been growing up with the notion that it is a right to own a gun. Since the creation of the second amendment, people all over the United States have been able to guns for private use. Guns operated by the public are said to have a variety of uses such as, being able to protect oneself if conflict arises, grants the ability to put food on the table, and are used in competitions shooting targets against other people. But for many people guns have been seen as the root of all evil. Anti-gun users think that guns cause a variety of unexpected and innocent deaths. They also think that there are not enough laws in place that allow just about anyone to purchase a gun. The question of should guns be legal to all citizens has plagued our society. Do you think it is morally right for anyone to arm themselves and use it when they deem it to be necessary? Or do you think that the 2rd amendment seem unnecessary and outdated law that needs to be rewritten? These questions are just two of many that have thrown back and forth between pro-gun and anti-gun users.
The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “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("The Constitution of the United States," Amendment II)." This means that citizens of the United States have the right to privately own and possess firearms. However, this has created controversy because some believe that there are many who abuse this right to commit criminal acts. Some believe that this amendment only applies to the eighteenth century lifestyle when the United States was under British control. A collective rights theory asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
Gun control laws aim to restrict or regulate firearms by selecting who can sell, buy and possess certain guns. Criminals do not obey laws and stricter gun control laws or banning guns will have little effect on reducing crimes. There are many myths about gun control reducing acts of gun violence, which are simply not true according to research. People are responsible for the crimes, not the guns themselves. Taking guns away from United States citizens that use them for many reasons, shooting practice, competition, hunting and self-defense, should not be punished for the acts of criminals. As stated by Mytheos Holt, “Guns in the right hands help public safety. Guns in the wrong hands harm public safety”. Research shows that defensive use of guns discourages criminals and reduces crime (Holt 2). Not only is it wrong to penalize law-abiding citizens, it is against the Second Amendment. It is unconstitutional to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
In "Just Take Away Their Guns," author James Q. Wilson argues that "Legal restraints on the lawful purchase of guns will have little effect on the illegal use of guns" (Wilson 63). Wilson points out that it would be tough to remove all legally purchased guns from the streets and nearly impossible to confiscate illegally purchased guns. Gun advocate J. Warren Cassidy argues that "The American people have a right 'to keep and bear arms'. This right is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. . ." in an article titled "The Case for Firearms" (Cassidy 275). James B. Jacobs and Kimberly A. Potter wrote in an article called "Keeping guns out of the "wrong" hands: the Brady law and limits of regulations" that "US law enforcement should concentrate on stiff sentences for crimes committed with guns and recognize that gun control laws do not keep guns from the wrong people" (Jacobs and Potter 1 of 27). Daniel B. Polsby, author of "The false promise: gun control and crime," simply states, "Gun control laws don't work" (Polsby 1 of 11). Polsby feels that "gun control laws are ineffective because [they] have not been proven to be a deterrent to crime" (1 of 11). James D. Wright states, in his article "Second Thoughts about Gun Control," that "If there were fewer guns around, there would also be less crime and less violence" (Wright 93). More gun control laws will only make it a hassle for law abiding citizens to purchase guns. They will not keep guns out of the criminal's hands because they have other methods of obtaining guns, such as the secondary market which is the illegal sale of firearms. Another reason why more gun control legislation will backfire is that those who want to purchase guns to protect themselves a...
Gun violence in the United States is higher than ever, and criminals with guns will “…kill as many as 1000 people each day” (Alpers&Wilson). Taking this into perspective, it is only right to fight fire with fire or, in this case, use a gun to protect yourself and those around you. Gun control does not only decrease the ability for protection, it also decreases our rights as U.S citizens. The constitution clearly states that we are given the right to bear arms, meaning we may carry fire arms. Even if we have stricter laws for guns, it will not stop killers from shooting innocent people. These men and women causing damage to the lives of numerous individuals do not care if there is a law banning guns, because all they truly want to do is hurt others. The pain citizens endure every day from losing a family member, friend, or even just a colleague is repulsive. These permanent deaths continue to make people fearful and it causes damage in their lives; unless something is done. Most people agree that action needs to be taken to stop this inhumane cruelty, but the question is; what can be done? Americans need protection, rights, and power to break this inexcusable gun violence circling America. Gun restrictions for trustworthy and reliable gun owners have not been proven to weaken gun violence in the United States; therefore, gun control should be limited because it is only hurting America, not helping it.
Right now the government has limited firearm purchasing only to people who pass certain steps. Gun control has risen as a controversial subject in the United States today. Many say gun control or banning of all firearms will help protect and make our country a better place. Reasons many are wanting to ban firearms are that the 2nd amendment is out dated and unjustified in this date and time. Writer Eugene Robinson states that “farmers wrote of “arms,” thinking about muskets and single shot pistols. They could not have foreseen modern rifles or high-capacity magazines.” Many agree with Mr. Robinson saying that back when the constitution was written they couldn’t have understood what was going to come in the future. Citizens also believe people have no reason to fight against intruders that come in their home that’s what the authorities are for. If people what to defend themselves why waste the money and time on having police? In this day and age why have weapons why not cut out all firearms and just be one happy country, it’s that simple, but is it really that simple? (“Assault Weapons Must Be Banned in
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Thomas Jefferson said this quote almost 200 years ago and to this day it still applies. The right to bear arms was such a priority to the founding fathers of this country that it received the second spot on the list of the basic rights of all Americans. This right is in the process of being restricted in order to supposedly reduce crime and homicide. These gun control laws should not be permitted because they restrict law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms, leave people defenseless when a crime does arise, and have been proven futile in other countries.
Richman, Sheldon. "The Seen and Unseen in Gun Control." The Freeman 1 Oct 1998: 610-611
In 1982, a survey of male inmates from eleven different penitentiaries, stated that sixty-nine percent of the prisoners knew another criminal that had been scared off, wounded, or decided not to commit a crime because they thought the victim had a gun (Agresti and Smith). As The United States heads to the end of 2013, current gun control debates are striking the nation, leaving everyone to develop their own positions on which side of the debate they want to be on. Gun control is defined as efforts to regulate or control sales of guns; however, most of what we hear from other people is that Obama wants to take away every gun in the nation. That’s not entirely true. Obama’s proposal to Congress is a law that would increase background check protocols, ban assault weapons, high-capacity ammunition, and armor-piercing bullets. The proposal also provides more funding for additional police officers on the streets, first response training, mental health programs, and school emergency plans.
Guns have been around for a very long time. People love being able to have the freedom to do what they want, especially when they can possess something that make them feel superior. The introduction of the Second Amendment opens up the controversial, yet well anticipated opportunity for United State citizens to be able to own guns. Americans enjoy the benefit of being able to own guns for decades over people in other countries. People can buy guns and carry them around in public. They own guns for many reasons such as to hunt, to protect themselves, and simply to satisfy their desire of owning a gun, but in recent years, the issue of people carry guns has become a problem. There are so many people get killed by guns in different parts of the country. This raised the alarm to the government to decide whether the regulation of guns should be looked after. These issues, once again, spark out a big debate in America about whether the right to bear arms given by the Second Amendment was handing the states the right to maintain militia units or giving people the rights to possess and carry guns.
The development of arguments surrounding gun control corresponds to the increased violence and problems related to weapons and firearms use. This then prompted the expansion of gun control initiatives and has shapes public opinion particularly in the promotion of increased regulation to banning. Due to this, it became controversial as it split the opinions of the citizenry particularly in their stance to advance different objectives. Arguably, the process of developing gun control remains to be detrimental due to its capacity to challenge individual rights and liberty, undermine the value of guns and firearms in the promotion of deterrence and self-defense and inability to recognize the commitment of existing reasonable gun management and control initiatives already in place.
“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns. (Obama)” This said prior to Obama’s presidency, in the 1990’s, is still a topic that is constantly questioned today. Many American’s feel the need to seek ownership of weapons as a source of protection; While others believe that private ownership of guns will do nothing more but heighten the rate of violence due to people taking matters into his or her own hands. Philosophy professor Jeff McMahan agrees with Obama’s statement in regard to the ownership of guns. In his New York Times editorial titled “When Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” McMahan provides evidence to support his theory of the dangers that quickly follow when allowing the community to own guns legally. McMahan, throughout the text, shows responsible reasoning and allows the reader the opportunity to obtain full understanding and justifies his beliefs properly.
The United States is a free country, and people think the right to bear arms is a basic right that every American has. This second amendment adopted in the Bill of Rights since 1791, it gives every U.S. citizen the right to keep and bear arms. Since this right got adopted, there are a lot of controversies around it, about regarding how, where, when, and why people should have the right to bear arms. This is an issue that most Americans should care about because it is about everybody’s safety. Some people say that because of people can carry gun freely, the ratio of crime and violation keeps rising. People always think gun is an evil thing that is only hurting and killing, but people do not know that it is the people who control the gun is evil, not the gun. American citizens should continue to have the rights to bear arms, because its benefits are significant to everybody; people use gun for protection, defense themselves from other threats, and also for many recreational activities.
There is no single answer to end the debate on gun control. Many variables must be examined but the evidence presented cannot be ignored. Gun control does not end violence, but makes the law-abiding citizens more vulnerable. In the 1878 Arkansas case of Wilson v. State, a judge stated, “Common sense dictates that inanimate objects, such as guns, are not responsible for human behavior. We don’t hold a match responsible for arson or a camera responsible for pornography. We rightly hold the people who misuse these tools liable. The same should be true for guns.”