Rhetoric Of Gun Control

On Friday morning, November 6th, a man in New York city woke up and watched the news. There he saw former mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, announcing his ideas for gun control. The news stated that after spending millions of dollars to spread his “Everytown for Gun Safety” across the country, United States citizens were still not impressed. Bloomberg’s main goals are to enforce stricter background checks, remove guns from domestic abusers, and give families the right to remove guns from people they believe are dangerous. According to the “Gun Control Overview,” pro-gun control advocates only focus on a select few gun violence issues, and they tend to repeat the same examples in their rhetoric. The gun control is one of the most debated

topics in the United States, and many politicians, such as former mayor Bloomberg, have taken it among themselves to come up with new ideas for gun control. However, Bloomberg’s approach to gun control is flawed because of the breaches in constitutional rights. His ideas are unconstitutional, like the right to disarm a family member if you deem them unsuitable for example, because every United States citizen has the right to bear arms. Lance Lindeen states that there are other alternatives for gun control by simply limiting the supply of guns. Despite these factually backed-up ideas, former Mayor Bloomberg still wants to use his own ideas.
The purpose of this report is to demonstrate how gun control laws contradict the Second Amendment. By understanding 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,” we will be able to understand the basis of the gun control debate. Applying this to current ideals, such as Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety,” Disarming law abiding citizens, puts the public more at risk. Criminals will always attain weapons, and they will accomplish this legally and illegally. If the United States conform to gun control laws, as seen in Canada and the United Kingdom, law abiding citizens will be at risk to criminals who attain weapons. The question still remains: How might gun control laws contradict the Second Amendment?
The gun control debate is very controversial among the public in many countries, but especially the United States. Some people believe guns are too dangerous for any law-abiding citizen to have while others disagree. How might gun control contradict the Second Amendment? The article, “Gun Control Overview,” written by an author from the Congressional Digest, asserts that the pro-gun control advocates focus on only a few arguments as opposed to the anti-gun control citizens who respond to all arguments and fight back with their own arguments for private ownership of firearms. He believes that the pro-gun control position is not supported by very many logical arguments, and states, “To gun control advocates, the opposition is out of touch with the times.” The writer then gives several statistics on the number of guns in the United States, correlation to fatalities, gun use in homicides, gun use in non-lethal crimes, and the use of guns in self defense or recreation. These facts play a role in giving the reader actual evidence on which to base their opinion. Without facts and data that can be corroborated, there is no way to discern any correlation between violence and guns. The author gives examples of two gun control laws that were passed by the United States government. The first cited is “The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA),” which focuses on regulating the firearms industry, mainly with interstate sales. The second law cited, the “Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,” was passed to require background checks on all handgun sales. These acts were passed with the intention of lowering firearms sales, but now they are believed to be insufficient. Many legislators would like for guns to be taken out of the public’s hands, as in Canada, the United Kingdom, and France. The only problem is that this would take away the ability for self-defense and would violate the Constitution. The Second Amendment 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.” Criminals will always get guns because the basic definition of a criminal is someone who violates the law. When seconds count, the police are minutes away, and if citizens have to wait for law enforcement to show up, violent crime and the fatality rates would rise because people would not be able to defend themselves.
Gun control has been implemented in other countries around the world such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and France.

One of the ways gun control could have taken a strong hold in these countries is the rhetoric used. Andrew Jay McClurg states in his article, “The Rhetoric of Gun Control,” the differences between “good” and “bad” rhetoric and how gun control is a prime example because it uses both types. McClurg states that in this debate, the rhetoric “flowed freely on both sides.” One of several outcomes related to gun control can best be demonstrated by the recent terror attacks in Paris, France on November 13, 2015. Having a licensed weapon could have possibly meant the difference between life and death for hundreds of people when a shooter opened fire in the Bataclan theatre. Nelson Lund states in his article, “Second Amendment, Political Liberty, and the Right to Self-Preservation,” that the United States has twisted the Second Amendment in higher and lower courts, “Establishing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, however, is only one small step toward developing a sound interpretation of the constitutional guarantee.” The Supreme Court has created their own definition to fit their gun control ideology, and said definition does not correlate in any way the the definition in the Bill of Rights. By outlawing guns for self-defense in any country, but specifically the United States, the world will not be able to fight back attackers such as the ISIS terrorists in

France.
Gun control is one of the United States most debated topics. The idea of gun control is faulty, although acts have already been passed in the United States, such as the Brady Bill and The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA), it has still become a popular ideology in several other countries. However, the Brady Bill and the GCA are not as strict as laws that have been passed in other countries. Paris, for example, was recently terrorized by ISIS terrorists. This crime couldn’t have been entirely prevented by guns, but at least civilians would have had an option for self-defense. Gun control has gained many supporters and opponents, politicians and civilians alike, because of the ruthless rhetoric seen on both sides. Going back to the original question: How might gun control contradict the Second Amendment? The Second Amendment will be essentially ignored if gun control laws are passed like the ones seen in many European countries because of the violation of the American “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” This right, as stated in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, “shall not be infringed.”