United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court

The continuing Mass Shootings in the United States has caused the gun control debate to intensify. While anti-gun control advocates say the Second Amendment guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, the pro-gun control group reads the Second Amendment as a collective right to bear arms; meaning organized militia are the only ones with that right. This essay will analyse the effectiveness of several different articles which present arguments for and against gun control. Charles W. Collier’s article, “Gun Control in America: An Autopsy Report”, dives into the controversial topic of gun ownership and gun control in the United States. He uses recent shootings, including the George Zimmerman case and the Connecticut elementary school shooting, to present his case that gun violence will remain in the United States as long as guns remain high in number and low in regulation.

Also many sheriffs across the United States oppose gun control because it takes away the right of innocent citizens to self-defense. Gun control is an unconstitutional attempt at disobeying the Second Amendment, which was written to keep our country’s militia armed and to give the defenseless a fighting chance against corrupt criminals. Our Constitution is made up of the rights of all citizens of the United States, not one of these amendments refers only to a select few citizens, but all are meant to be acknowledged and withheld. The second amendment, ratified on December 15, 1791, 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” (Spitzer 148). James Madison was the author of this amendment because he wanted to ensure citizens that the federal government would not take away any citizen’s right to bear arms.

While using a point-counterpoint style to argue against gun control I will show guns are best controlled by good aim. The government must keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals and the mentally ill, and they must not limit the rest of the society from owning them. Gun control advocates will argue that gun ownership is not a right and is not protected by the 2nd amendment. They further believe guns are harmful to society. Gun control advocates also believe guns are not needed for self-defense.

Along with the fact, Obama’s gun control plan is to also ban the use of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines. Yet, these ideas pose a threat to the second amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. Gun control laws don’t need to be put into action, no matter how well the laws are assumed to be protecting. Although the abolition of gun control has its perks, some may argue that keeping and implementing gun control has advantages, too. For example, gun control protects: law-abiding citizens, children, and any other type of citizen from other harmful citizens, such as criminals.

The discussion about gun control is far-gone, and America should enact laws that will require gun owners to register their firearms. A background check on every citizen bearing a gun is necessary so that guns do not land in the arms of felons and the mentally ill. Thinking that people can use guns to fight for their liberty is a far gone idea that needs a second thought. However, gun control is not the only solution because it is necessary to educate the population on the risks of keeping guns and asking them to remit the guns at their own will. Sources "Gun Control And Gun Rights."

One of the most controversial topics of the year is the argument on guns and the government attempting to ban and control certain guns. This topic has always been in disagreement among the American public but has recently become much more popular after several large-scale shootings such as the infamous Sandy Hook. Despite gun control appearing to be the solution to these tragic events, controlling and banning guns will simply not work. Why will it not work and why is it so bad? Because it has not worked before, current gun control laws and attempted laws target the wrong guns, banning the targeted guns or any guns for that matter will not prevent mass shootings, and it infringes on our constitutional rights as Americans.

Those who are against change are saying that the Constitution cannot be changed because the guns aren’t to blame but the people that are using them. Finally, the type of gun a person can own is a huge issue between both sides. Those who agree in changing the laws are saying semi automatic guns should be banned. While those who are against changing the laws are saying semi automatic guns can be used for hunting and sport. The only way to reach a compromise between both sides are to have a proper vote throughout the Untied States and come to a conclusion on what guns should be banned.

In America, we should not have gun control because it violates the Second Amendment, other countries find it unnecessary and sometimes counterproductive, and it is not entirely effective, with some negative effects. A debate over the issue has raged for years here in America, with high gun crime rates and far-too-frequent shootings. One side claims we need strict gun control, while the other says we don’t. Whichever side you fall onto, I’m here to tell you that I agree with the latter: America does not need gun control. First of all, gun control is an obvious violation of the Second Amendment.

Daniel B. Polsby, author of "The false promise: gun control and crime," simply states, "Gun control laws don't work" (Polsby 1 of 11). Polsby feels that "gun control laws are ineffective because [they] have not been proven to be a deterrent to crime" (1 of 11). James D. Wright states, in his article "Second Thoughts about Gun Control," that "If there were fewer guns around, there would also be less crime and less violence" (Wright 93). More gun control laws will only make it a hassle for law abiding citizens to purchase guns. They will not keep guns out of the criminal's hands because they have other methods of obtaining guns, such as the secondary market which is the illegal sale of firearms.

“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.