Every American has a constitutional right to defend themselves and obtain ownership of any style of handgun, if they so choose to do so. Although, some may feel this is an outdated method of self-protection or hobby people such as congress and anti-gun activist who feel there is no need for a civilian to own any firearms. However, in the past few years there has been an ongoing war between the NRA (National Riffle Association) and congress to limit or ban the use or ownership of handguns. Some people think by disarming society, it will limit deadly altercations and fatalities of innocent people.(should there be more here ) Everyone has a right to own a handgun for either protection or a hobby and, congress does not have the right to alter and create new laws that would threaten a person’s right and decision of ownership.
Society has become more dangerous, though out the years. According to the article in the New York Times “Just Take Their Guns Away” written by John Q Wilson the author states that congress is trying to pass a law prohibiting or limiting the use of handguns as well as other guns, and think by doing so will limit deadly altercations of civilians. Moreover Wilson claims that this in fact will not do such a thing and will only make things worse and there is a solution. He further states by allowing the police and law enforcement to have the authority to frisk anyone they think may be carrying a gun illegally, and have the right to confiscate any gun that has not the proper credentials and the person carrying them will be subject to appropriate action. Wilson Further, states by allowing only “law-abiding” citizens to carry guns that it will limit the number of robberies and gang related shooting. Furthermore, he also ...
... middle of paper ...
...ind a way to obtain something that has been taken away by congress. However by inventing a higher technical object that authorities can use to scan someone who may be breaking the law or, carrying a firearm illegally will in fact prevent a robbery, or a more violent crime and save lives. Furthermore, by passing a new law that gives law enforcement to frisk anyone will set the example that anyone who is found with an unlicensed firearm is subject to jail time and a fine. In addition there will be less robberies, home invasions and violence with deadly for and society will be safer. Although some innocent people may be subject to search to make sure that they are abiding by the rules the outcome of public safety will be the bigger payoff.
Works Cited
Wilson, James Q. "JUST TAKE AWAY THEIR GUNS." The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Mar. 1994. Web. 5 May 2014.
“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” is stated in the United States Constitution as the Second Amendment. Several Americans wish to rid of guns from citizens, disobeying and disrespecting the Constitution. I shot my first gun when I was young and have always been surrounded by them. My neighbor does not leave the house without carrying one, nor does my eighteen year old friend. Never once have I felt unsafe or uneasy knowing that there was a gun close to me. The right to bare arms has become a popular local battle in which some people want to reduce the freedom of one owning firearms while others wish for the
New York Times writer Jeff McMahan argues in his 2012 article, “Why Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough”, that the United States should ban gun ownership entirely, or almost entirely. (McMahan, 1) McMahan creates his main argument around the idea that when more and more citizens become armed, “criminals work to be better armed and more efficient in their use of guns.” (McMahan, 1) Ultimately, he argues that although some with guns may be safer than if they were without the guns, but the without guns become much more vulnerable. So why not just arm everyone with guns as gun activists would say, then wouldn't everyone be safer? No. As McMahan points out, “When more citizens get guns, further problems arise: people who would have once have got in a fistfight
This nation was built on the right to bear arms, but this freedom is more controversial than ever. With all the school shootings and gun violence in America today at some point it may seem that just too take away all guns may be the answer to this problem. In defense, this is not the answer. If someone wants to commit a crime, gun laws will not stop them from obtaining the weapon. It is like a drug. Drugs are illegal, but every day you see someone either with, on, or recovering from a drug habit. What about for defense right to own guns to protect your family if part of your constitutional rights. Rights that are supposed to be unalienable rights. Although in this day in time, they are always trying to take away guns either by trying to pass laws or taxing guns and ammo which almost makes guns unaffordable for middle class normal American families.
One of the biggest reasons that handguns should not be banned is because of the Second Amendment. 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.” People who argue that guns should be banned state the Second Amendment was not intended for the regular civilian, but rather the militia. This is where they are wrong. The Supreme court has taken a case like this in Heller vs District of Columbia. Heller had been caught using a handgun and sued the U.S. on the right for civilians to bear arms. The Court decided and interpreted the Second Amendment as the right for all the civilians to bear arms and not just the militia. Also along with amendments and acts, there are two different acts that put restrictions on who can and cannot buy guns. The Gun Act of 1968 and the Brady Act both put different restrictions on who can buy guns. The Gun Act of 1968 has te...
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 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.
“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.
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.
Right now the government has limited firearm purchasing only to people who pass certain steps. Gun control has risen as a controversial subject in the United States today. Many say gun control or banning of all firearms will help protect and make our country a better place. Reasons many are wanting to ban firearms are that the 2nd amendment is out dated and unjustified in this date and time. Writer Eugene Robinson states that “farmers wrote of “arms,” thinking about muskets and single shot pistols. They could not have foreseen modern rifles or high-capacity magazines.” Many agree with Mr. Robinson saying that back when the constitution was written they couldn’t have understood what was going to come in the future. Citizens also believe people have no reason to fight against intruders that come in their home that’s what the authorities are for. If people what to defend themselves why waste the money and time on having police? In this day and age why have weapons why not cut out all firearms and just be one happy country, it’s that simple, but is it really that simple? (“Assault Weapons Must Be Banned in
The first reason handguns should be outlawed for ordinary citizens is because their main purpose is simply to kill other human beings. Why would our country allow us to have the right to own an object that is deadly? Our government seems to want to protect us. For example, seatbelt laws and motorcycle helmet laws were created to protect our lives. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforces pollution laws to keep us safe and healthy. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects food and tests drugs to make sure American citizens are not harmed by nasty food and dangerous drugs. Yet, our government allows just about anybody to own and walk around with guns. It does not appear our government really cares about our safety. If it did, handguns would be outlawed for the general public, because their only purpose is to kill people.
Bell, Larry. “Disarming the Myths Promoted By the Gun Control Lobby.” Forbes. Forbes, Inc., 21 Feb. 2011. Web. 6 Mar. 2014
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...
Guns have been around for a very long time. People love being able to have the freedom to do what they want, especially when they can possess something that make them feel superior. The introduction of the Second Amendment opens up the controversial, yet well anticipated opportunity for United State citizens to be able to own guns. Americans enjoy the benefit of being able to own guns for decades over people in other countries. People can buy guns and carry them around in public. They own guns for many reasons such as to hunt, to protect themselves, and simply to satisfy their desire of owning a gun, but in recent years, the issue of people carry guns has become a problem. There are so many people get killed by guns in different parts of the country. This raised the alarm to the government to decide whether the regulation of guns should be looked after. These issues, once again, spark out a big debate in America about whether the right to bear arms given by the Second Amendment was handing the states the right to maintain militia units or giving people the rights to possess and carry guns.
...eryone on the ‘lookout’, it is hard to just live your life. “None of these bills actually prevent violence. Rather, they help deteriorate the quality of life in our communities” (Roth 1). Guns are ruining our communities by showing the people that it is acceptable to take action if you are frightened. Sometimes, taking action can be the worst possible solution to a crisis. If a person takes action, it shows that you are brave, but, it also shows the criminal that you are actually a threat to them. This would raise the death toll significantly.
Throughout American History looking all the way back to the late 18th Century and the Revolutionary War, there have been many qualities that set America apart from all other countries. Documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights bestowed upon Americans have spelled out some of these very qualities that Americans hold dear. One right that is often brought to the forefront of the argument over gun control is found within the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights 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”(1). This powerful statement sets the foundation and precedent for our founding fathers’ intent for Americans to keep their firearms at all costs. When this right is in jeopardy of being infringed upon, it is the duty of Americans to fight back for their freedoms just as they would do for the very land they set their feet upon. Additionally James Madison, one of the founding fathers stated during the ratification period of the Constitution that, “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…[where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms” (Madison 1). If those who founded our country believed in the right that Americans have the choice of being armed, then it should not the minority of law makers doing their best to strip those rights away.