Gun control is an issue that has been debated over in the United States for years. It has recently become more of a hot issue, due to random gun violence sweeping the nation and thousands of guns on victims such as Trevon Martin, school children and movie goers end up wounded( physically and mentally) or dead. The growing concern of gun violence have persuaded many government officials and American citizens to support heavier gun control laws. However, many government officials and citizens still are unwilling to support stricter gun control. Which is solely due to the Second Amendment, which states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." As a part of the US Constitution, it supports the individuals rights to own firearms and causes people to feel like there is no need to have stricter gun laws: however, I disagree with the Second Amendment to an extent. The government shouldn't be allowed to restrict the ownership of guns to the point it is hard to obtain a gun, nor should it let us have excessive amounts of freedom with guns. I truly feel there needs to be a middle ground in which people can be content with guns.
The Supreme Court's ruled on firearms saying the U.S. Constitution guarantee the right to "bear arms", however some courts have been in disagreement in recent times and a fighting to redefine the ruling in order to get Gun ownership to be "strictly controlled." (Supreme Court, 1) The ruling "strictly controlled" means that the government can make revision the Second amendment as they see fit. Gary Kleck (a professor of criminology at Florida State University) argues that "gun control laws have not reduced crimes."(Egendorf, 1) If stricter gun laws were enacted in the United States, the crime rate would incre...
... middle of paper ...
...se two options which moderate gun control. Moderate gun control would make it to where people can purchase a limited amount of fire arms and would protect citizens that would be at risk from criminal violence. Moderate gun control is already practiced today. It is used as a way to keeping track of weapons purchases, and is for the purpose of knowing who owns a firearm that has committed crime. However moderate un control can be made better, mainly by limiting the amounts of guns and bullets a person can buy. It can also be made better by making army and swat grade firearm type unavailable to the general public. A better moderate gun control would give people the gun control they desire also with the option to use a firearm as protection. Moderate gun control would in turn please a vast majority of people's standings on the issue and end the debate over gun control.
Opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. For the purposes of this paper "Gun Control" is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and the like. So defined, gun control understandably brings favorable responses from some, and angry objections from others. The gun control debate is generally publicized because of the efforts of the Pro-Gun Lobby or the Anti-Gun Lobby.
The second amendment grants all Americans the right to bear arms. The ability to hold a firearm at any time as long as the firearm is registered. In the United states, all it takes to hold a firearm is a background check and a safety class. In a short reading from the “American Now” book a short article By Christina Tenuta called Responsible gun ownership saves lives she asks “do Americans really need guns?”, but are the guns really the problem? Although the second amendment requires some decent documents , the qualifications to obtain a firearm needs to be revised to a mental check, a family history check , and also to make it a priority for reinforcement to check on the registered firearm every six to twelve months.
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.
Should the 2nd amendment be revoked or changed? Many Americans would say “No,” stating that guns are dangerous and times have changed. Others might argue that having the right to bear arms keeps people safe and less threated by the outside world. In this debate, both sides of the 2nd amendments constitutional rights will be argued. The upcoming presidential election has been influencing voters to revoke our 2nd amendment rights which could change the democracy on which our country was founded.
Guns have the ability to protect the user against those who intend to do wrong. There have been multiple accounts of law abiding citizens protecting themselves with firearms. Some cases even involve stopping criminals with possibly illegally obtained firearms. Given both stances, too much gun control will result in misfortune as will too little. Without a perfect balance, lives are at risk. Throughout this paper I will discuss in greater detail the ways in which this balance can be achieved.
Everyone in the United States of America has an opinion on gun control regardless of their age, race, or religion. From within those opinions arguments are formed. People are arguing about gun control at their jobs, at their schools, and sometimes at their places of worship. On one side of things there are the people that support gun control like certain politicians or political organizations, teachers, police officers, and so on. On the other side of things there are the people that are against gun control, people such as hunters and various types of criminals. When it comes down to sensitive topics like gun control, there are very few people that do not choose a side. The Second Amendment, like all Amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, is not absolute. There are vague legal boundaries that have been set down thus far which answers some questions, but leave many more open (Sanders).
The second amendment to the US Constitution shows that it is unconstitutional to have complete and total gun control. The second amendment 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.” This means that it is the right of an American citizen, abiding by the constitution, has the right to bear arms. Currently, there are over three hundred and seven billion people residing as American citizens. Within the homes of these Americans, forty five percent have a registered gun in their household. As a diverse nation, there are many reasons why there are guns located within a household. Sixty percent stated the gun is used for protection against int...
America is the most well armed nation in the world, with American citizens owning about 270 million of the world’s 875 million firearms (Marshall). Indeed, this is more than a quarter of the world’s registered firearms. The reason why Americans own so many guns is because of the Second Amendment, which states, “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.” (Rauch) This amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to have firearms. Since this amendment is relatively vague, it is up for interpretation, and is often used by gun advocates to argue for lenient gun laws. Hence, gun control is a frequently discussed controversial topic in American politics.
Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being committed with guns will be reduced and thus save lives. However while gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, the same laws restricts gun owning citizens who abide by the law; these citizens make up a great majority of the opposing side of this argument. These people argue that the law was made with the individual citizens in mind. This group believes that the Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. One major group that is in strong opposition of stricter gun control laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA argues that having stricter gun control laws will only hinder law-abiding citizens. The final outcome on this debate will mainly depend on how this Amendment is going to be interpreted.
Of Americans 3% own half the country's 265 million guns, that means each of those 3% own more than one gun. We have the individual right to own and use these arms. Gun control is a big debate in politics right now. I personally do not believe in gun control, i just feel like if a good guy had a gun then he would be able to stop things like shootings from happening. So do organizations like the NRA (National Rifle Association), the GOA (Gun Owners of America), and the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) “The answer to crime is not gun control, its law enforcement and self-control” (Alan Keyes political activist) This violates our second amendment right of the U.S. constitution to keep and bear arms. So it's all in the best interest that we keep gun control from happening, so that we can keep our second amendment.
“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 right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence would ultimately fail given the previous experiments of gun control in England and in numerous states.
People have questioned gun control long time. Many people wonder if anyone, aside from those who join the law force, should be allowed to carry guns. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Wright 4). Franklin understood that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not uphold their liberty. Some people who argue for gun control state many violent crimes involve guns. Others believe a child could find the gun and something bad could happen to the child or others when a gun is unsafely stored. People who argue against gun control might say there is a huge psychological gap between citizens who shoot to protect themselves or their property and those who go into schools and shoot at others. Criminals will always find a way around gun control laws and will be able to obtain and use guns illegally. The second amendment protects gun rights for individual citizens. Reasonable gun control laws and educational steps can be taken to protect the majority of U.S. citizens. Gun control does not only take guns away from criminals, gun control also limits law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families when necessary.
The Second Amendment of the United States protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The United States Government should not infringe on those rights by the enforcement of gun control against law-abiding citizens. Gun control does not reduce crime, does not stop criminals from obtaining guns, and does not address the real issue of violent crime. There is no evidence that gun control affects the crime rate. The United States government is attempting to reduce violent crime by controlling the amount of guns on the market, who is allowed to purchase a gun, and what type of gun a person is allowed to purchase. The only people affected by gun control laws are the law-abiding citizen that should be allowed to purchase firearms without the government’s interjection.
Gun control is an awfully big issue in the United States today. Many people in America don’t agree with the gun control laws that they have today. Gun control laws only take guns and freedom away from law-abiding citizens. Many citizens have their own reasons for owning a gun. Why would the government want to make it harder for people to own a gun? People that own guns aren’t very likely to be attacked by criminals. Owning a handgun is one of the best ways of protection when used correctly. The second amendment states “the right to bear arms”; does this grant everyone the right to own a gun? Gun control laws have not been proven to do anything for citizens. Gun control laws just make it harder for the good guy average Joe to own a gun. Gun control laws are not a good idea, and are taking part in the loss of our freedom that was given to us.
The United States today can be a scary place. Someone that is disgruntled, has a mental health issue, radicalized through terrorist propaganda or for any other reason can take up a firearm and mass murder innocent people. It can happen anywhere, anytime, anyplace. Anyone that pays attention to any news or newspapers has probably heard something about gun control. It’s a hot topic in this country and around the world. There are a lot of problems with gun control and regulating guns in the United States. Before you can talk about solutions you need to isolate the problems keeping the solutions from being realized. The people who are for and against guns do have common solutions but there is strong opposition