The Republican Party

“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.” These are the famous words drafted by the founding fathers into the Bill of Rights. This particular amendment has since then been a major part of American culture. Through the second amendment it has given American citizens freedom to buy firearms of any sort: AR-15s, AK-47s, handguns, and the like for self-defense. However, in light of the most recent mass shootings, people have felt that it is time to change if not regulate the freedom the second amendment grants. That is to say that some believe that there needs to be a solution to reduce if not end the gun violence in America by regulating and restricting the access to weapons meant for the police and military by American civilians. Ultimately, the solution to this social problem of gun violence in America is gun control. What is gun control exactly? From an extreme conservative's perspective, gun control is a means of disarming the public and infringing the right the second amendment grants Americans. What this point of view fails to take into account is that gun control is not about infringing on any right or disarming American civilians. It is about restricting the access and sales of deadly firearms to potential felons who have the capability of using them to commit mass murder. Furthermore, what some do not realize is that the second amendment was written in

Did you know from 1950 to 2016 98% of all public mass shootings were committed in gun free zones? I believe that the second amendment is important because, it gives you a right to protect yourself and your family. Guns save lives and lower crime rates. Banning assault rifles won’t do much to help lower crime or stop mass shootings.

Opponents of stronger gun laws say that guns are not the cause of mass shootings because on November 26, 2013 a study found that banning assault weapons did not significantly affect murder rates(http://gun-control.procon.org/). This may be true, however guns are the cause of too many mass shootings and should not be allowed. High capacity mags should be banned because between 1982 and 2012 50% of 62 mass shootings used high capacity mags to fire at innocent people. Also stronger gun control will protect children and families from armed assailants (http://gun-control.procon.org).Plus parents are demanding action after the sandy hook shooting in which 20 children from the age 6-7 were shot(http://www.newsmax.com/Fast Features). This is a real problem in the us because of firearms many people are killed everyday by people with guns.

Imagine going to school where instead of worrying about a grade you got on a test, you have to worry about your school being the next victim of a mass shooting. 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” (United States Constitution), and yet instead of some people using their guns for self defense, they use it for mass shootings. Some argue that we already have gun control laws that don’t work, but others say if we had better gun laws than it would work. The debate on gun control started in November 22, 1963, when evidence in the assassination of president John F. Kennedy increased public awareness

The founding fathers of America declared that everyone has the right to bear arms, but there is evidence to prove otherwise. Mass shootings, school shootings, and gun violence in general are all caused by people with guns. Eliminating the one thing that these things have in common is the only way to prevent more violence from happening. The Second Amendment needs to be updated to current times. A country-wide gun control law needs to be put in its place in order to help prevent mass shootings and gun violence as a whole.

From 1975 until the DC vs Heller ruling in 2008, the Firearms Control Regulations Act was in place, which banned residents of DC from owning handguns, automatic firearms, or high-capacity semiautomatic weapons. Since then, very little gun legislation has been passed at all. In fact, since the horrific Newtown shooting that occurred in 2012, not a single piece of legislation has been passed on guns. While conservatives might feel sorry for the victims, they realize that many conservatives, like Joe the Plumber (the Ohio workingman who gained prominence in the 2008 election), who once said, “Your dead kids...don’t trump my constitutional rights”, would stop voting for them if they tried to implement gun control policies. Many on the right claim that gun control is an effort not just to regulate guns, but to completely ban them. This is an effective scare-tactic used to get their constituents angry at the Democrats. But gun regulation and gun bans are two very different things. Data shows us that there are certain groups of people who should never be allowed to own a gun. This includes those who have prior offenses of violence, those who are mentally ill, suspected terrorists, and people who have children living in their home. However, there are people who can make a reasonable claim to needing a gun, and they shouldn’t be denied that right. For example, people in very rural areas, without much access to the protection provided by public safety officials should have the right to own a gun if they demonstrate they are able to use one properly. Also, hunters and people who have obtained restraining orders against those who have threatened them with violence might make a case for their right to own a gun. Most gun control advocates don’t want to take away guns from everyone, they

As indicated by (cnn.com), “sixty nine percent of the brutal wrongdoings are murders”. Mass shootings by unhinged young fellows should introduce a unique case, one that is detached from firearm control recommendations these outrages motivate. Mass killings are arranged carefully and as a rule the individual arranging get their weapons lawfully, so verifications would be of no utilization to stop these criminal. Protesting for gun control would make a positive impact on changes through the community and to be more specific restrictment of assault rifles. Then again contentions for more prohibitive weapon control laws from societal requirements for sensible firearm control laws, with high rates of gun-related deaths or incidents does not abide by the second amendment. Majority lives would have been spared if there was a restriction on assault rifles, and that being said citizens would still have protection with a simple handgun or shotgun.

There are many shared beliefs between the two opposing ideas in the United States- everyone loves and wants what is best for their nation. I believe that most Americans have the purest intentions and there is no right or wrong solution to this problem. It is sickening that mass shootings have become the norm. These shootings leave many dead and wounded, impacting lives in such a gruesome way. I, while a strong supporter of the second amendment, recognize that there is a serious gun problem in the nation that needs to be addressed. According to studies it is apparent that many people stand on common ground. “A national survey conducted in January 2013 found that 77.3% of Americans (including 59.4% of gun owners) support requiring people to

Some Americans feel that because guns are already regulated in so many other countries, America should just follow suit, while others believe guns both represent and help guarantee our independence, our liberty, and our freedom to make our own decisions. The founding fathers anticipated that gun control could become a serious issue in the future, so they added the Second Amendment to the Constitution. 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.“ Most gun control activists focus in isolation on the beginning of the amendment where the founders wrote that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. They then try to argue that only the military or the National Guard should have access to guns, not individuals. In so arguing, however, they completely ignore the last part of the Second Amendment, which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The founders obviously envisioned that the people would keep and use firearms to protect themselves and their country. Unfortunately many politicians don’t see it that way. Yet, the Supreme Court has struck down firearm bans again and again. The 2008 Supreme Court case, District of Columbia vs. Heller,

Imagine that you live in a very remote area say it be out in a cabin deep in the woods. Most of your food comes from grabbing a rifle and waiting for the right moment to take one shot. Or if you need to defend yourself against a large animal such as a mountain lion or a bear. These are times you would need a gun to protect yourself or to gather food if you have no other choice but using an assault rifle to shoot up a school by no means is that protecting yourself in any way shape or form. That’s why I believe that guns should be totally controlled inside city limits of any city in the United States and guns should be limited to police forces and federal agents that protect the US.

The Democratic Party is one of two major political parties in the United States. I associate myself as a Democrat for the reason of their liberal views. The Democratic Party tends to be more liberal and support the views like same sex marriage, immigration, and social and economic equality. Many of the views the party stands for and beliefs tie to my beliefs. Some of the key priorities of the Democratic Party are the Economy, Poverty and Homelessness, Education, Healthcare Policy, Social Security and Medicare, Immigration, and Gun Policy.

“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

Gun control is an extremely controversial issue in the United States, and the debates around this topic has started many decades ago. According to the article “Gun Rights vs. Gun control” by Brianna Gurciullo, these debates are fueled by the people who defend the gun rights and the people who advocate in favor of gun control. It has been difficult to prove that gun ownership is directly related to an increase in violence due to the fact that researches tend to disagree on the impact of gun ownership in the American society. These debates tend to be brought to the spotlight whenever there is a mass shooting in the United States, which according to Abbey Oldham, who is a reporter from the PBS News Hour, happens quite frequently. However, organizations, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), defend that the laws for gun control violate the Second Amendment of the constitution, which states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” stated Gurciullo. Due to the distinct interpretations of the constitution and the difficulty to agree on the best approach to tackle the issue, this controversy seem to be almost unsolvable.

We have had several of the worst mass shootings in our nation's history in quick succession over the past few years. Certain legal restrictions and acts from our government could have prevented numerous deaths. Common sense background checks and limitations to cartridge size and assault weapons would surely have saved many lives at the Las Vegas Massacre, but certain men and women claim that these restrictions violate their second amendment right. They claim that guns aren't the problem. That guns don't kill people, people kill people. So limiting access to devastating guns is just avoiding the problem. The Second Amendment right presumably violated by common sense gun control is “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” (Second Amendment). The Second Amendment states that for the need of a well regulated militia to protect the security of the free state and the right for the people to keep and bear arms. Militias have been inactive for decades so in a sense the intent of the amendment is no longer relevant. Based on the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution is not still a valuable and viable document in modern America because it stands in the way of thorough background checks, training courses, and its vague wording and absolute intent make it inefficient to maintain peace and order and should be amended “To the People of the United

Gun control in the United States is a very controversial topic in today’s political society, leaving the nation divided into two sides with two strongly opinionated beliefs. This all started with the increase in the amount of mass shootings and an overall increase in gun violence. The two sides consist of the liberal point of view and the conservative point of view. The liberals believe that the availability of firearms to the people in the country is a major issue, and that the U.S. government is at fault for the mass shootings due to the lenient regulations on guns. In retaliation, the conservatives argue that having a gun is a God given right, that the Second Amendment of The Constitution. Although the availability of guns is seen to be