The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.” (NRA-ILA) Wayne Lapierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, said in 2009, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the guns you want to ban and you don’t want to ban. You’re going to ban these semi-autos, and then it’s going to be handguns, and then it’s going to be pump shotguns.” Lapierre’s statement supports the fact that the recent gun ban legislation across the United States will not solve the problem of increased violence. The writers of the law lacked understanding of the actual weapon terminology, causing this ban to be too broad and confusing. In the year 2012, Senator Feinstein drafted a new ban for guns.
Don’t change the laws, just enforce them better. Gun control is a very large and very controversial issue in our country today. Disarming civilians, though, is not the way to deal with armed criminals. The government should let us keep our rifles, shotguns, and handguns, because we have proven ourselves by means of a background check to be responsible citizens. If we ban guns, we lose our best chance at defending ourselves from criminals who get guns illegally.
Cable News Network, 05 Apr. 2012. Web. 12 Dec. 2013. . Sellers, Patricia.
The government in their infinite wisdom made the ownership of fully automatic firearms illegal, as a solution to the increased violence. I do not see any need for anyone to own a machine gun, then, or now. Nevertheless, the ban on the firearms did not curb the violent behavior of the criminal element. The ban created a new black market. It was the repeal of the prohibition of alcohol that ended the massacre.
While these are valid reasons for banning guns, there are also several cons to gun control. Politicians should stop trying to add more gun laws and be more focused on enforcing the laws we already have. Gun co... ... middle of paper ... ...gued that the framers intentions for the 2nd amendment was provided for the people to have arms for a militia and not for each person in the United States to personally own fire arms. It is also argued that the way it is today is the way the framers of the constitution intended it to be in the first place. Works Cited Debate: “Assault weapons ban in the united states”.
In conclusion, banning guns in the US will not lead to a safer country because it will not keep guns away from criminals, it will hurt safe gun users, and may leave citizens at the hands of a tyrannical government. The right to bear arms has been intact for over 200 years and should not be taken from us now. Guns are all around and could be stolen by a criminal even if they are banned. People who use guns correctly will be punished for doing nothing wrong, and tyrannical governments have usually begun after gun control was put into effect in other countries. Banning guns from the US is a terrible idea; even though it might seem like a good idea it will not do anything to prevent criminals from doing what they want to do.
In the time period that the Constitution was written, the formal militia had to supply their own weapons and ammunition (Dowlut). On account of this, gun control supporters believe that was the reason for the 2nd amendment, but now, since the government supplies our militias (national guard) with guns and ammunition, the amendment is not needed, and the citizens should be denied their firearms. As sound as this argument seems it is easily defeated by the 10th amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The key part of the amendment isn’t the central meaning; it is the physical words at the end, “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” If the logic of the gun control advocates is applied to the situation, then the amendment just said the same thing twice, the states - meaning the actual states - and the people - meaning the states representing the people. Furthermore, if the founding fathers really did mean only to
The second amendment clearly states “the right to bear arms”, don’t let the government try to change that. Don’t let gun control laws fool the public, because they have not been proven to reduce crime at all. So go out and buy a gun before that right is taken away. Eventually guns might just be a thing of the past. So practice your right to protect your country and vote against gun control any time that you
I understand that some guns that are classified as military grade weapons should be banned, but most guns do not pose a threat in the right hands. Furthermore, the Second Amendment should protect us because we have the right to bear arms and use them for self-defense. If all guns are banned that would just contradict the Second Amendment. People want to ban guns because they think of death and that it is always associated with a gun; however, they do not look at the