Gun Ownership Pros And Cons

Gun Debate

These passages present a discussion about arguments concerning gun control. This is an important debate for the American people since the Constitution's second amendment gives us the right to bear arms. The two positions argue whether or not gun purchases and the right to own specific types of guns should be further regulated. Both viewpoints have valid claims warranting consideration; for example, evidence indicates that further regulation will close gun buying loopholes. In contrast, opposing evidence suggests that criminals will always find a way to get a gun. While both sides of the issue have valid points, the claim that gun purchasing and ownership should not be further regulated is the strongest supported position, the position supported by the

preponderance of the evidence cited in the passages. The most convincing and forceful reasons in support of this position are that the people's second amendment right must be protected, the Supreme Court has struck down such proposals in the past, and most criminals buy their guns illegally. Accordingly, these reasons and opposing viewpoints will be discussed next.
The first pertinent point to make on behalf of the argument that further gun regulations should not take place is that the people's second amendment right must be protected.

To illustrate this point, Senator Ted Cruz commented that although every action must be made to keep guns out of the wrong hands, the federal government must continue to protect American's second amendment right. In addition, any action taken to limit this right given to American citizens is unconstitutional. Consequently, law-abiding citizens must take a stand against further gun regulation in order to protect their constitutional rights.
The second relevant point to make in support of the claim that gun ownership should not be limited further is that the Supreme Court has struck down such proposals in the past. For example, when a similar law was set before the court regarding stict gun control in the District of Columbia, it was struck down. Additionally, as defenders and interpreters of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has no choice but to uphold the second amendment. In short, if such laws and regulations have been rejected by the Supreme Court in the past, they have clearly found them to be

unconstitutional.
The final applicable point to make in favor of the position that tighter gun control laws should not be passed is that most criminals buy their guns illegally. In support of this point, if a fellon can not legally by a gun from a gun store, they will buy them illegally on the street. As an additional point of fact, criminals by their very definition do not follow the law; what leads law makers to believe that criminals will follow additional gun laws if they do not obey even the most basic of gun laws now. In brief, criminals will always find ways of acquiring guns no matter the difficulty.
The counterargument that the country needs tighter gun control has a valid point. For example, there are still loopholes that must be closed in the purchasing of guns. This point, though valid, does not make the most convincing argument. The contention that gun ownership and purchase should not be further regulated is the more cogent point.
Considering all the evidence, it is reasonable that the points cited above persuasively support the position that extra laws limiting the ownership and purchase of certain firearms should not be passed, these points being that the people's second amendment right must be protected, the Supreme Court has struck down such proposals in the past, and most criminals buy their guns illegally. Why does it matter if there is tighter gun control or not? In order to perserve every American's second amendment right to bear arms, more strict gun regulation must not be passed. Any such actions will only limit our freedoms and make law-abiding citizens less safe.