The topic of gun control is very popular and controversial in our country. Currently one of the biggest debates being discussed is; should the citizens of the United States of America be allowed to own or posses hand guns or rifles for personal protection and or sport. The controversy is about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment and what it’s true meaning is. It really comes down to whether or not ordinary citizens should be allowed to own guns for personal protection and or sport purposes. The 2nd amendment reads: “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." Many people have their own interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd amendment …show more content…
Martin pointed out that the reason why we have guns is to protect ourselves (the nation) from an overpowering government, if that were to happen. Yes, I agree, that is why the 2nd amendment was written in the constitutions but that was written over 200 years ago and we haven’t needed guns to protect ourselves from an overpowering government. Then Martin said we use guns for hunting (ever since guns came about). By hunting he was talking about hunting for food and that is true but I believe a small percentage of people still do that. He then talked about how the constitution was so well written that it has created such a great country. And how we should not pick at an amendment we do not like and start attacking it and wanting it changed. Yes, the constitution is the foundation of this country and it really did make it great. However, this amendment has been at play for over 200 years and only has done harm over the years, to its own people. Lastly, Martin talked about how so many guns are already in this country then there are people and it would be impossible to take away every single one. Also, that the people who do not obey the law will always find a way to get a gun and the law abiding citizens are the only ones getting hurt by banning guns. I agree with this last part but our law abiding citizens are still at harm with guns being …show more content…
In the article, "10 Arguments for and Against Gun Control - The Financial Word", both parties on the issues state their clam and agree that it is impossible to “eliminate all firearms that currently exist in the Unites States” but what needs to be done is making it harder for people to get guns. There should be a more intense background screenings and extra steps too insure the safety of our nation. A stricter gun control legislation is not necessary an attack on the 2nd amendment. Just like in the article, "10 Arguments for and Against Gun Control - The Financial Word", it stated what Martin and I stated earlier. Martin made a point of protecting ourselves of an overpowering government (the 2nd amendment states creating a militia for that reason) but that was when our nation was developing there is no need for that anymore. Guns need to be banned. I know it is not the doing of guns but the people behind the trigger. In Ali Mattu’s “48 Hours” investigation he explains how “violence is a complex problem.” He focuses on the issue of guns and violence and how that is not the issue. The issue that needs to be addressed is “our best hope at saving lives remains early identification o those who are most at risk of committing violence.” We as a divided nation need to stop pointing
In Mallory Simon article "Gun Debate: Where is the Middle Ground?" Amardeep Kaleka made a vow: He would do whatever he could to ensure nobody ever went through what his family had. When his father was one of the victims of the Sikh shooting. Kaleka asked a panel of polar opposite views if there was a middle ground. Though they had opposite views the panel was able to come to an agreement that enforcing background checks is the middle ground. It will take a lot of money and resources but they feel it is the best option/first step to improving gun control in America.
In his article “Gun debate? What gun debate?” Mark O 'Mara discuses the controversial issue of gun control. O’Mara takes the tragic school shooting in Oregon as an opportunity to voice his opinion on the debate of guns. He clearly states his position and explains that gun violence has increased enormously because of the lack of command by the government and support from the public to speak out against it. O’Mara claims the issue is no longer a debate because it is so evident that guns have become a significant problem in this country and therefore actions must be taken to control and govern gun laws. In his article he attempts to raise awareness to the severity of the issue and tries to persuade his readers to take a stance against gun violence
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
As the generations of America’s youth continue to grow, so does the increase in violent crimes associated with each generation. Over the last decade, studies have shown that school shootings have increased by an astonishing 13%. Although this figure as a percentage does not seem like much, it makes one stop and think. Parents blame the video games and their violent behaviors for the influence on their children’s daily lives. Grandparents blame the child’s parents for not showing them the right way to grow up in the world. And then we have that child’s friends who say that this child just was not respected by their classmates, or perhaps even bullied into this violent nature. Regardless of the cause to this violent increase, many Americans do believe in a solution: gun control. Gun control is the situation in which the federal government would put a ban on owning firearms. Contrary to what many “hard-core” Americans believe, gun control would not necessarily ban them from owning hunting rifles or even personal handguns. It would simply limit the ownership of semi-automatic assault rifles, and other rifles of this nature. This does not contradict the Second Amendment of the Constitution which states that American citizens have the Right to Bear Arms. I believe in the constitutional Right to Bear Arms, and I am against any attempt to eradicate that right for any American citizen: however, I am for gun control in the sense of lowering the possession of semi-automatic and fully-automatic rifles.
The way that an individual interprets the wording of the Second Amendment influences their point of view on who has the right to "keep and bear arms" (Amendment 2). The controversy brought on by the Second Amendment is because the Second Amendment does not clearly define whom "the people" are. This ambiguity has left room for action by legislative bodies and the courts to pass laws and make interpretations that influence the way this Amendment is applied and enforced. The Second Amendment says, "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." (Amendment 2).
The debate over firearms has been polarized for too long. Gun law is a never-ending issue because there hardly is any true debate. Americans (and even gun owners) do support the governments efforts to make sure guns are less dangerous in violent hands, but that is the main problem-the guns getting in the wrong human hands. Millions of law-abiding Americans do own and do enjoy their guns. But criminals and sometimes-disconcerted kids often use firearms to kill. The use of firearms has increased tremendously. An average day in Los Angeles is four people dying in a gun related crime and the United States faces approximately 87 deaths a day. There are more than 200 million guns in circulation in the United States and if you don’t own a firearm, chances are that your neighbor or friend does (Fineman 27). Sure, the Founding Fathers incorporated the Second Amendment as “the right to keep and bear arms,” but it did not give the distinction of using guns to kill more children and people than anywhere in the world.
Guns have always been a topic of discussion. Many people have dedicated their lives to support or to fight gun rights. Gun rights are not only a civil rights issue, but it’s also a rights issue. On one side, the supporting side, people think guns should not be taken away and made illegal. The supporting side believes guns are a necessity for protection and a natural right. It is written in the constitution under the second amendment that it is, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The other side, the side fighting gun rights thinks that guns are an unnecessary evil; they cause death when it’s not necessary, and in the wrong hands it could be very dangerous. We have seen this in numerous school shooting and public shootings over the years. Gun rights are not just a hot topic between citizens, the government is divided too. Some government officials think guns should be fully legal, other think it should be illegal and that all guns should be taken away from the people. This is a huge ongoing rights debate, because both sides have solid platforms and dedicated members. I believe people should have gun rights, having a gun to protect your rights as a person and as a citizen of the United States is a necessary evil to keep the peace. Taking away the rights citizens have to own guns will result in more violence and will create a bigger issue, because the people using their guns legally for protection will be left unprotected from other people who take advantage of the law and will use an illegal gun to commit a crime.
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.
There are gun control laws to try and reduce the number of violent shootings that occur. They are trying to put limits on weapons that Americans can own. The government is trying to take our guns away mainly because of people that are criminally insane. Most of the people who commit crimes don’t even have the weapons legally. If the government takes away the rights of people who are allowed to have firearms in their possession, it will most definitely cause an outrage. Most people believe that the people should be more capable of maintain proper use of the firearms instead of having them all taken away. Taking the firearms from Americans away would cause a lot more problems than there actually are. The people will be upset with the government taking firearms away because of the horrible people who harm innocent people using them. So they will do anything to their capabilities to keep them.
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.
The issue of gun control has always been a hot topic among the American public. Most everyone, if asked, will tell you that gun control is an issue needed to be dealt with because of the event that took place at Columbine High School back on April 20th, 1999. The American public has been wrestling with gun control long before then. If we take a look back at August 1st, 1966 at the University of Texas, a man armed with a hunting rifle committed one of the most violent mass murders in history. Gun control refers to the Government placing restrictions on the American public to buy, own and sell firearms. If we read the constitution, our second amendment right is the right to bear arms. This has been the ongoing controversy of this issue. We the people say our constitutional right to buy and own firearms is being seized from us. The government is using our society’s violent incidents as cover to place restrictions and bans on firearms. This essay’s purpose is to provide proof that buying and owning firearms is our legal constitutional right and that our government is trying to attack the wrong angle when trying to fight crime involving guns in the United 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.” 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.
... government.” He clearly states that the right to bear arms was indeed intended to provide self-defense against a government where people believe it to be ruling the unconstitutional. This is also clearly what gun control tries to provide for people since the aspect of it has changed over the years and is neglected by many.
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 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