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 Although, some may feel this is an outdated method of self-protection or hobby people such as congress and anti-gun activist who feel there is no need for a civilian to own any firearms.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.
Richman, Sheldon. "The Seen and Unseen in Gun Control." The Freeman 1 Oct 1998: 610-611
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.
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...
The American Constitution is sacred in that it hasn’t changed for hundreds of years, but it has come to our attention that some of the amendments are outdated. The second amendment states that everyone has a right to bear arms which sounds righteous and fair, but we live in a far different time than our fathers that wrote the Constitution did. Today, we have real problems with guns because it is so easy to obtain and so many misuse the power of such a dangerous weapon. It has always been American culture that owning a gun as a household self defense tool is considered a norm. The many cases of mass shootings made some people demand stricter regulations on gun or even ban guns completely. However, it would be illegal for the US government to ban guns, as laid down in the Constitution. It would seem “unamerican” that a man doesn’t have the right to buy a gun if he wanted to. It is also difficult to make any changes on gun laws, because of the National Rifle Association. It is an incredibly powerful organisation that represents gun owners ' rights. It is also known as one of the most influential lobbying groups in Washington. In order to lay stricter laws on guns, the government would have to go through them first. “[The NRA] have the ability to recruit and fund competitors for politicians who don’t listen to them. Lawmakers like their jobs and most try to keep them for life” (Culhane, 2015, p.2). The NRA have many wealthy members, and it is corrupted. Whenever congress tries to restrict any gun rights, the NRA will help any campaign financially to defeat them. Even though majority of the people in America want to change the gun laws, they are not as strong as the NRA. The NRA is strongly supportive of the American gun culture. Therefore, any suggestions that disadvantage gun right will be drowned to
Ring, Ray. “Guns R Us.” High Country News (Paonia, Co) Vol. 39, No. 14 Aug. 6 2007:10-17. Sirs Issues Researcher. Web. 6 Oct. 2015.
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.
“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
The United States Constitution is regarded as the supreme law of the land. When it was drafted over two centuries ago, the goal of the founding fathers was to provide for the general welfare and common defense of all citizens, establish a more perfect Union and insure domestic tranquility for the United States of America. Unfortunately, this tranquility has been disturbed by unnecessary tragedies at the hand of armed individuals. Tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting and the Columbine massacre, where armed individuals took the life of innocent civilians mercilessly, have shaken our communities and forced us to take a different approach when it comes to gun safety. Gun control has been the topic of many heated debated in recent years. We have, as a nation, become so accustomed to firearms in our everyday lives whether for protection, hunting, or self-defense, that we have forgotten that firearms are dangerous and deadly weapons. The second amendment of the Constitution grants all individuals the right to bear arm; however, this amendment continues to be used and abused by individuals who chose to interpret it differently than it was originally intended. It is our duty, as citizens of this great nation, to open our eyes wide and realize that this problem is not going to fix itself. Although the right for all individual to bear arm is granted and secure in our Constitution, it is imperative for the safety our population to regulate all gun purchases and tighten by the requirements necessary to purchase a firearm in order to prevent further tragedies from occurring.
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...
Wilson, H. (2007). Guns, gun control, and elections. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
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.
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.
“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.
Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. A vast majority of citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would quickly reduce the threat of crime. Many innocent people feel they have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting. Americans have a constitutional right to own hand guns and stricter laws and licensing will not affectively save lives.
Central in the arguments against gun control is its ability to restrict any citizen of the United States the right to own guns which is protected under the constitution. Specifically, due recognition is made to its connection to the 2nd Amendment wherein it seeks to protect the individual liberties of people. This facet also applies to gun ownership regardless of the original objective and intention. “The second amendment from the Bill of Rights grants private citizens the right to bear arms. Thus, people who stand firmly against gun control insist that no legislation, technically, should have the right to take away a citizen’s guns without first repealing the amendment in question” (Groberman 1). A good approach to consider in highlighting this part comes from depriving the citizen of his basic right on the basis of specific presumption that it would be used for violence or crim...