NRA: The Right to Have Gun Rights Gun control is a very touchy subject in our world as crime rates rise and mass shootings occur. There are two sides to the table of gun control, either more control or less control. Both Democrats and Republicans have their stance on this issue and most representatives follow the party lines. It is typical that Democrats favor more gun control and Republicans favor less. The policy I support is the right to continue to carry a concealed weapon in every state; the only exclusion is it cannot be carried into restaurants, bars, or any place that sells alcohol. Currently some states allow you to carry a concealed weapon but if you cross state lines then you have the chance of being arrested. I would also entail that all states have the same/equal laws. What this policy will do is give the freedom to Americans to choose whether or not to carry a gun. This policy runs together with another gun control law, the Stand-Your-Ground law that grants individuals the ability to protect themselves from a deadly situation by using a gun. By allowing people to carry a concealed weapon you are giving them more protection for themselves or those around them. The third part of my policy is background checks. Without an in-depth background check gun stores could just hand a psychotic individual a gun to shoot up a mall. This is already in place and I believe it is a safe and a common sense thing to do. By allowing citizens of the United States to carry a concealed weapon, protect them in the area of defense and to ensure that the people carrying these weapons are mentally safe and not criminals, the world will then become a safer place. Along with my policy I think it is best to think of people who have never be... ... middle of paper ... ...of his interest in guns and gun rights. When someone joins an interest group they have power. This power is conferred by groups with a common interest, and brings it together. Voting does not give you power. The reason that the NRA is so powerful is because it is private and organized and in politics that is what gives an interest group its power. The NRA works because it has solidarity, a sense of group belonging. The people of this group feel as if whatever they do has an impact. Another reason is selective incentives, a reward that benefits those who help the group out. These incentives ensure that there will always be someone willing to help out. The NRA gives incentives such as classes on how to use guns or become better at shooting a gun. The NRA is powerful because of solidarity and incentives, thus is why I will choose them to help bring my policy into law.
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.
I am writing on behalf of my thoughts and myself about gun control laws. My position on this topic is neutral leaning towards the "No Gun" law. The idea of a federal law to ban these guns is a good idea, but it could be better. I believe strongly that guns should be banned from our country in some kind of way, but there are exceptions like for law enforcement and hunters. This law could lower the murder and death rates drastically. The US would be a whole different and safer country to live in. No one should live in a society where they are afraid of being killed by a gun, we should try harder to make this society in the US a better place. I have many reasons to back my views on this topic, and here are some main reasons that you should really think about.
In the news article The NRA will fall Adam Winkler a professor at the UCLA School of law believes that the Power that the NRA once had is slowly disappearing. He begins the article saying he understands the anger that gun control activist are feeling that there were no recent big laws passed in favor of gun control after a deadly shooting at a community college. But then he explains why these supporters of gun control should stay hopeful because he senses that the NRA won’t be as powerful as they once were. Winkler goes on to say that most of the people who are in the NRA are mainly white live in country areas and are not that educated. Winkler explains that since that since this kind of groups of people are slowly declining support for the
Some people believe that extremely tight gun control laws will eliminate crime, but gun control laws only prevent the 'good guys' from obtaining firearms. Criminals will always have ways of getting weapons, whether it be from the black market, cross borders, or illegal street sales. New gun control laws will not stop them. Since the shootings of Columbine High School, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook, the frequency of mass shootings has increased greatly. Gun control is not effective as it has not been shown to actually reduce the number of gun-related crimes. Instead of considering a ban of private firearm possession, and violating individual ownership rights, it may be more practical to consider the option of partially restricting firearm access.
‘Useless laws weaken necessary laws.’ --- Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1775) Importantly, gun ownership doesn’t create a violent society, but lenient gun control does. Nevertheless, bans do not make something disappear, rather harder to control! Therefore a strict, uniform federal gun control system is far more essential so as to ensure no collateral effects of any gun uses!
The best known of the Pro-Gun Lobby is the NRA, headed by Charlton Heston and Wayne LaPierre. The Anti-Gun Lobby includes such organizations as Handgun Control, Inc., The Violence Policy Center, and the ACLU, and is commonly associated with such figures as Sarah Brady. It is doubtful that anyone would dispute that reducing violent crime is a good thing. Most pro-gun lobbyists will concede that guns are used in violent crimes, and that guns act as an enabler for criminals. It is impossible to deny that mass shootings could not be carried out without guns.
In current day society, it is frequently promoted as self-defense and our “duty” as Americans to own a gun of some sort. The second amendment to the constitution declares that “We the People” are allowed to bear arms because we live in a free State. Although these statements are true, at what cost? The question, “at what cost,” arises due to the recent push for an extension and enforcement of the second amendment. The people of the States have been pushing for desired concealed carry at public areas, such as schools. Statements and questions of concern have been on the as to whether or not this idea is “smart”. Contrary of it allowing some people to feel safe, the idea should be imposed. Guns are weapons and they have the history behind them
Since the NRA’s was charter in 1871 for the promotion and encouragement of rifle shooting on a scientific basis, the organization has grown to over four million members. The organization describes itself as non-profit and non-partisan. However, it has more Republican members than Democrat members. Although it will endorse candidates from either party as long as the candidate supports its pro=gun position. Its stated position is for the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights and the promotion of firearm ownership rights as well as marksmanship, firearm safety, and the protection of hunting and self-defense.
Gun ownership is a hot topic in this country. The United States has almost always been a country know for its’ lenient gun laws. “Gun Ownership is a civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment of The Constitution” (Roth 1). The Constitution says that we can “bear arms”, which in turn, makes it very complicated to make a simple change/addition of words. States can choose to make restrictions to state laws as long as it follows the amendments and the U.S. Constitution. For example, states can take different paths when it comes to the death penalty as long as it is constitutional. “Illinois is one of only two states—the other is Wisconsin—that does not allow some sort of concealed carry by its’ residents” (Brownfield). 48 other states allow concealed we...
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.
I believe that gun ownership should be completely restricted. Guns only promote violence. Limiting who can buy guns can only do so much. Even running background checks, to determine who would be mentally stable to own a gun would not prevent someone who cannot obtain a firearm himself. “The fact that people with problematic criminal and mental histories can own semi automatic and automatic weapons means that we need more laws passed to limit gun ownership even further.”” Such things would only promote a person to find someone, such as a close relative, to get the the firearm they would choose to have. However, permitting or forbidding guns completely would lead to an excess of problems. We would be left in a situation such that, only law enforcement officials would have all the authority and the weapons to control us more. These facts pose this argument, but it would be in the best interests to ban gun ownership, as crime rate and death rate would both decrease
When the United States Constitution adopted the Second Amendment as a part of the Bill of Rights it was to recognize citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This Second Amendment is the reason why strong gun advocates are afraid to have any gun policy put in this state. The people that have their guns believe that the government is going to be corrupted and the people have to overturn it. But, they live in a fairytale if they really thinking that they are going to beat a army like the United States. They are afraid that the local government will take away their guns. This policy that I will explain to you won't do none of these options, but instead help the state lower the crime rates that involve guns and keep law enforcement well know to people that have guns in their possession. We are trying to go after the illegal owners of firearms instead to outstanding citizen that owns gun trying to protect his family from an home invasion, protecting his herd from wolves so the farmer won't lose more money , or just having a good time hunting with his friends and family.
“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.
The debate over gun control in America has constantly been brought up over the years due to gunmen killing large amounts of people in shootings. From Columbine to Sandy Hook, or the shootings of the two reporters in West Virginia, these public shootings are occurring everywhere. Lawmakers and civilians alike are pushing for increased gun control in hopes of preventing the same tragedies. Anyone that has been affected by the shootings has been pushing Congress and state governments to force new sanctions on the government. Over the past three years, Congress has shot down all the laws despite the large amounts of public support.