The Issue Of Gun Control

The right to bear arms is a birth given right to all Americans by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment has become controversial recently due to the technological advancement of firearms. Modern firearms are capable of both high rates of fire and greater capacities of ammunition, unlike the single shot muskets that were available at the time of the Second Amendment’s conception. American liberals view these improvements in firearms as dangerous and unnecessary. However, no matter how dangerous firearms may be, the Second Amendment is a necessity for one factor alone: protection from one’s own government and it must be upheld. The Second Amendment provides a physical tool for Americans to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, it allows Americans to form militias against a tyrannical government, and it allows Americans to maintain comparable firearms of the U.S. government in order to prevent the potential loss of American freedoms in the future.

“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.” In our political climate today, there is an ongoing debate on the meaning of the second amendment. In particular, much controversy centers upon whether we should make gun control laws more strict like the laws in DC, or if we should make laws to encourage and embrace American citizens to own firearms and carry them in public, similar to laws in Vermont. In fact, some citizens wonder why we even have the second amendment in the first place.

Gun control has been a big topic for the past decade in the united states. These debates will rise and fall time in and time out after something horrific happens in the state. Anti-Gun supporters do not realize that it is extremely difficult to regulate something in the states that is a big portion of our economy.Would stricter gun laws change anything? So far statistically It has been proven otherwise one must consider how a citizen would defend themselves when they are faced with terror. How will they defend themselves if there are restrictions on guns? It seems that some states that have stricter gun laws are where the most shootings and also where more terrorists attack take place. It seems that gun control is only pushed when shootings gradually get worse and worse. But why are these anti gun groups not speaking up when police brutality happens or when a racial hate crime occurs? Anti-Gun groups do not look at the bigger picture and try to understand that it is more than guns. Gun control almost plays Zero role in murders

The United States has 88.8 guns per 100 people, or about 270,000,000 guns, which is the highest total and per capita number across the globe. The current public gun control debate in the United States seems to be placed on standby until it is sparked up by a major mass shooting. There were at least 126 mass shootings between January 2000 and July 2014.(pro). Opponents of more gun laws accuse supporters of using a horrific event to further a lost cause, saying that more laws would not have prevented the shootings. Advocates of more gun control often want more laws to try to prevent the mass shootings and call for smart gun laws and background checks . Pew Research Center did

The second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of people to bear arms and was adopted in 1791. It guarantees all Americans "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is more described as supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Former Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger writes an essay regarding “The Right To Bear Arms,” that originally appeared in the Parade Magazine in the 1990’s that questions if “The Right To Bear Arms,” is an outdated idea. Burger argument is that the gun control would lower if handguns were lowered. He also talks about the”Militias,” which is an army that protects the security of the state. Our “State Militias,” in our time, serves as a huge national defense.

The second amendment of The Constitution of the Unites States rules 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.” In recent years this has become a highlighted and popular discussion topic throughout people and media. Typical with American media the subject of gun control is visited with broad stroked of red and the use of fear tactics while completely ignoring the complicated and underling positives and negatives of public access to firearms and the benefits and risks associated with this freedom. Most people do not carry a weapon at all and may question others who do because of the moderately low risk of being a victim of a crime. Those how carry however like to think “Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.”

Through recent and past years, gun laws have been a large area of discussion. Similar to most large areas of discussions, there are multiple opinions concerning gun laws. The United States Constitution’s Second Amendment grants the right for a United States citizen to keep and bear arms. However, many believe that the Second Amendment should be repealed. The varying opinions on both sides of this argument are very challenging to understand in depth. Although, through research, it is possible to explore the reasons on why different members

The United States Constitution says that its Citizens have the right to bear arms. This Amendment, when written had no limitations or constraints, however there seems to be more laws than ever trying to govern or ban the carrying and even ownership of firearms as a whole. Many say that the reasons for the attempt of gun control laws are due to the safety of the public nevertheless if you look at the statistics themselves it shows that armed law bidding citizens stop more violent crime involving and not involving firearms if armed than the police department, which are paid to provide the service and are mandated to protect and serve. The Chapters of Freedom, (1992) Now, there are a few safety reasons out there why ownership of firearms could be banned, but these arguments are mostly offset; not only for the need for protection, but because of how the restriction of this constitutional right would become dangerous close if not, taking away United States citizens personal freedoms.

In America there is a growing issue some say. The issue being gun control and how guns affect and/or end lives, the even bigger issue though is the issue of how people can or can not write about gun control to educate the public. Gun Control is an issue that needs to be avoided when trying to persuade readers of an opinion for two reasons, the issue of gun control is a terrible essay topic because there are too many emotions involved in gun control debates and because in general there is no good research on gun control. The only essays and articles available for research are articles filled with biased through the use of Aristotelian Appeals. Aristotelian Appeals include ethos, logos, and pathos each appeal using a different strategy to

“We the people in order to form a more perfect union.” This is the beginning of the infamous Preamble of the United States Constitution. The Constitution is the one and only document this great country’s foundation was built upon. The Preamble is one of the few parts of the Constitution that many Americans know, and can even often recite the entire thing, however, the remanding part is often looked over and unknown. One part, a very important one, is the second amendment. This amendment states that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the Free State, their right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (The NRA). This one, small part of the Constitution gives Americans the right to keep and bear Arms, and has been under fire in more recent years. Not only are many American citizens demanding to amend this amendment, the Government has stepped over it completely, all in the hopes to abolish the use of guns among American citizens. The Founding Fathers put each and every part of The Constitution in place for a reason; to protect the American people’s rights. The issue with gun bans is that they prevent the citizens who properly register and use their firearms, from the having the ability to use them for self defense, giving the advantage to the criminals (Strossel). Gun control laws fail to protect not only individuals, but America as a whole, as the laws are ineffective, and inadequately allow self

Gun control has been a hot topic in the media lately. The government seems to think that it would be a wonderful idea to take away our right to bear arms. May I remind you this is our right according to the second amendment? The second 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." Just to be clear on the meaning of the word infringe, it reads, “To actively break the terms of a law, agreement, etc.” With that in mind, why would any American think that it’s ok for our government to take away our right to bear arms? Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but is this not what Hitler did to the Jewish people, before launching his murderous campaign against them? Sure there would be some benefits to having gun control, I am not completely biased on the subject. But Newton said it best in his third law of motion which states, “for every action, there is an equal, and opposite reaction.”

More gun control means fewer deaths and crimes. Gun control in California is already very strict, but not strict enough. There are many reasons as to why gun control in California should be even stricter. First of all, there are many people out there with mental problems that already own a firearm. If the law were to become stricter, they would have more processing to rule out the mentally unstable from owning any type of firearm. Anyone taking any anti-depressants should automatically be disqualified. There is a good chance that it would most likely, reduce shootings, massacres, suicides, and all other types of incidents that have happened these past couple of years. Most of the past massive shootings are committed by people with mental instability. Secondly, the state should really enforce a very strict background check. Anybody who has a criminal or gang related background should automatically be disqualified from obtaining any type of firearm. Anybody with a violent record should also be disqualified. Lastly, California should make gun control stricter because stricter gun control would mean less crime and a safer state.

The controversial issue of gun control is one of the most debatable topics among politicians and civilians alike. This is because of the complexity of gun control and the long history that is related to the subject. Gun control is typically an effort, by the government, to create legislation that regulates the sale and use of firearms within the country. There are various arguments that surround this topic which include gun-related violence, accidents, self-defense, murders, suicide, constitutional rights, and so on. James Q. Wilson, a professor who has taught at Pepperdine University, Harvard University, and the University of California, Los Angeles, and a published author of several books, take a negative stance on the subject of gun control. Wilson contributed to the gun control debate in the last few years with his written op-ed article. According to Wilson, there is no possible method to eradicate the hundreds and millions of guns that exist within the country, restrictive gun laws will not significantly affect the United States’ murder rate, and that guns play an important role in self-defense in everyday lives. Contrary to what Wilson believes, strict gun control is necessary and should be enforced to ensure public safety because gun laws have the power to produce a positive outcome in the long run, reduce gun-related violence, and reduce the numerous risks that gun ownership open.

Do guns really kill people or are they just being blamed for it? This question come in to the minds of people whenever there is a shooting involved. For instances, when a 22 year old man went into sandy hook elementary school carrying firearms and tragically killing 20 children and 6 adult staff members. Whenever people debate about gun control, it always causes people to pick a side, on whether to support it or not. There are people that are anti-gun that support gun control, they feel that the government should ban guns in order to lower crime rate and to prevent future tragedies from happing again. Then there are people like the National Rifle Association that strongly believe in the second amendment and they also believe

Gun is always a heated topic in US. Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans cut their life by virtual of guns, great deal of people tend to prohibit gun purchase in the US, says the number of people died increase dramatically every year, more and more people use gun in an inappropriate way, in other word, crime. President Obama delivered several emotional speeches last year for gun accidents, from empathy to angry. But there is a counter argument says gun control is not the answer to crime, criminal can always find guns to hurt people, if average people can not have guns, we don’t have weapon to protect ourselves and families. Hence, the responsibilities become pivotal for gun owners, we have to take the responsibility for either ourselves and others.