Argumentative Essay: The Need For Gun Control

Gun control has been a controversial issue for years and numerous solutions have been proposed and enacted. The debate sparked after tragic civilian attacks, like school shootings. An example, is the tragedy in 1999 at Columbine High School. Two teens attacked the school, killing 13 people and wounding more than 20 others before killing themselves. Following this attack, numerous solutions have been argued and purposed. However, a definite solution still has not been reached and America is split on the topic. The solutions currently enacted focus on guns, yet America still has a serious issue with gun related crime attacks, and fatalities. Solutions should not solely target the actual guns, because guns are powerless without the person who fires the weapon. The solution should not be to take away guns, but to consider the people who have access to them. Addressing mental health is the real solution to preventing gun violence and attacks.

In conclusion we should have better gun control. There are roughly 32,000 gun deaths per year in the United States. That’s a big number of deaths. There should be a law were every gun how has ever been checked out or bought to have a number and if stole they have to report about just in case someone is trying to use it for the something bad. For the better and the sake of our planet we should have better gun control considering it will save a lot of lives. Maybe even make this place

Last but not least, the famous Second Amendment. Here is what it is about: “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”. Pro-gun supporters love to cite the Second Amendment as a proof that it is their right to carry guns in order to rise up against a tyrannical government. However, they are only manipulating the original intent of the Second Amendment for their own profit. Back in the days, the United States had no standing federal army because the founders were afraid of a national standing army consolidating power and the states were expected to sustain a state militia in order to contribute to the national defence. Now that the United 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." –James Madison, The Second Amendment.

Gun control violates the second amendment an it takes away our rights to own and carry firearms. If people carry a concealed gun what are the chances that someone would steal from them, they won’t because they have a way to protect themselves. If the people the steal for money know that no one can have a concealed firearm then it is easy for them to take whatever they want. But if people have a way to protect themselves how much less would be stolen from others that work for what they have.

After all the arguing, the ratification process was in full force. The responsive argument, according to Vandercoy, widely made was that Congress might be able to confine the existing militia force, all armed citizens, to a select militia made up of a small segment of the population. The delegates were trying to eliminate the possibility that game laws, used effectively in England at different points to disarm the population, would not produce a similar result in America. He summarizes the state ratification process; three states ratified while expressing their understanding that the people had a right to bear arms, and two states refused to ratify until individual rights were recognized as amendments.

It is late at night and you are on your bed watching the television. You are in the middle of your favorite show when you hear glass breaking. At first you think it is your pet knocking over your vase, but then you hear footsteps. It seems like you are defenseless, but you remember your gun in the closet. This is a situation over 2.5 million people deal with per year. Luckily, one in three Americans own guns to protect themselves, hunt, play sports, or collect as a hobby. During the Revolutionary War, minutemen were there at a moment's notice to protect the Americans from British armies. Our Founding Fathers created the Second Amendment to protect citizens from invaders and situations like this. Today it it used in many more ways than protecting

As we have seen, weapons are utilized as a part of an expansive number of wrongdoings. Be that as it may, how might we decrease the measure of weapons utilized as a part of perpetrating wrongdoing, while in the meantime keeping in place the privileges of the regular resident? One of the approaches to do this is require everybody who wishes to buy a firearm to take and pass a weapon wellbeing course. Many states that permit hid weapons require this kind of test before issuing grants. This would be a one-time test and would include a historical verification of the potential weapon purchaser. The purchaser would then get a card like a driver 's permit that they would present to the weapon merchant before having the capacity to buy a gun. Under such a framework there would be no holding up periods and no bans on specific sorts of weapons. A kind of weapon control that would work is a forceful policing program. Under such a program, the police would look for weapons on anybody ceased for minor infractions. Such a program would try to dissuade the unlawful exchange of guns on our boulevards. Still another program is force harsher punishments for criminals who utilize guns over the span of their

The assault rifle ban has critics that believe by banning the weapons, it would make the country a unsafe place. Opponents claim that the Second Amendment reserves the right to own any type of weapon for self-defense. Noel Marino, the Editor and Author of Guns and Crimes, stated "Gun control supporters had argued that the Founding Fathers could not have in envisioned semi-automatic firearms, and thus the Second Amendment only protected firearms such as muskets. However, the court dismissed that notion saying " some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way." The court has stated that the second amendment protects the rights of having assault weapons for self defense.

The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the U.S. Constitution did a break down on what the whole Second Amendment really means. The militia clause, the Articles of Confederation said that the states should have militias, but made no mention of individual gun ownership. Sure there was a reason why guns were really included in the Constitution, its because hunting was an important source of food for so many people and of course personal protection. There really wasn’t any political motivations for ensuring gun rights, the Americans themselves mistrusted the armies. It makes me wonder why of all things, that Americans wouldn’t trust their own armies. It must have been the Revolutionary War, when the nation’s independence had been arned through bloody victories

On December 15, 1791, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The bill was approved by three-fourths of the United States. The 2nd Amendment was created, to provide citizens of the U.S. a form of private protection. However due to the increase of technology along with the rise of violence in modern time, many are beginning to question if we should remove the Amendment, and only grant members within militia organizations access to this Amendments right to bear weapons.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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." Some people who advocate for the stronger gun control and extremists who go as far to claim that all guns should be illegal dwell on the part that talks about gun rights in relation to the militia. In a court case dating back to 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that because “the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument” (United States V. Miller, 1939).

For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.” This explanation brings me to my next point of what the Second Amendment protects citizens from. As described in the quote, armed citizens constitute a militia that defends our nation from foreign forces and other emergencies in our country. If the government continues to regulate the type of firearms the people of America possess it would be put Americans at a disadvantage because invaders would have a significant advantage over the American people which essentially defeats one of the main purposes of

“I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools…and on military bases. My first day, it gets signed, okay? My first day. There’s no more gun-free zones,” Donald Trump said.

The following argument is in favor of gun control. The restrictions on guns in place today are not nearly sufficient considering the level of gun violence seen on a daily basis. In the article “Stronger Gun Control Laws Will Save Lives” it is stated, “The fact is that very few federal laws regulate the manufacture, sale or possession of firearms, and those currently on the books are filled with loopholes or significantly tie the hands of law enforcement.” Arming citizens would not reduce crime or allow for self-defense, it would merely place guns into the wrong hands of people who are not trained enough or mentally stable to handle them. This is why there are so many school shootings and public massacres on television constantly broadcasted