In District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, The US Supreme Court agrees with me when they say: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home(gun-control.procon.org). But if gun control is enforced, this will not be true. It will leave lawful
And if it is not known the second amendment does not exactly say that everyone in the U.S is allowed to own a gun for what they want and the government cant do anything about it. The exact wording of the second amendment 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." Should there be regulations on peoples gun rights? Are these gun regulations necessarily needed? These are the questions that some people have been asking.
It’s a true fact that people kill people, not guns. However, people use guns to kill people. So then, it would be understandable to think that it is necessary to control who can get guns. But yet, a large number of guns are sold to people whose backgrounds aren’t checked. This means America isn’t completely controlling who all can get guns — nobody is.
Every human should have the opportunity to protect themselves, but that doesn 't mean having a gun would do that. There is a variety of ways to protect yourself against violators or terrorist or rapist. Javier Auyero States many reasons of why we shouldn 't allow guns on campuses. Allowing guns on campuses create a more
The constitution states that “...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”. (US Const. amend.II) The right to bear arms is just as important as the right to free speech. The second amendment was put in the Constitution for a reason, and no one has the right to take away any of the rights given to the people by the United States Constitution. The moment the right to bear arms gets taken away, the government has free reign to take away more rights.The second amendment was not just meant for the people to just own firearms.
Harris also says, “the liberal commentariat seems to have no awareness of what “sell-trained” signifies.” He goes on to say that it includes and understanding of what to do and what not to do when the danger of shooting innocent bystanders exists. We should be aware also that only special permit holder can legally carry a weapon in public currently and all the people who can have true reason and/or have taken an appropriate class in order to do so. In Source C it is stated “School Safety: A Shared Responsibility” I couldn’t agree with this statement more. We as a country need to come together, no protests, no yelling, no riots, just come together a talk about a solution. A common middle ground that fits what everyone wants at least partly.
A country is defined not by whether its citizens can carry guns - a country is defined by how peaceful it is, by the happiness of the citizens, by the way it handles a crisis. Right now, America teeters dangerously on the edge of complete disaster if gun control laws are not passed soon. Therefore, we, as a nation, strongly urge you to consider the following points - the main point being that gun control laws will give people true freedom. The need for gun control cannot be silenced by your blind support of the Second Amendment. You state that “If you aren’t free to protect yourself - when government puts its thumb on that freedom - then you aren’t free at all.” Yet, freedom is not measured by how many guns one person can buy.
What I am saying, is a criminal can easily get their hands on a firearm if they wanted to. But too strict of gun control can lead to great, law abiding citizens without protection of their selves or their families. The debate whether we should arm our teachers is also a good subject. I do not believe in teachers having a gun in the classroom unless they want to go through the training provided by school funding and
Closing statement: The debate about gun control is inappropriate, because it does not go far enough. Only a completely ban of privately owned firearms can help drastically reduce the number of firearms related deaths and save countless lives. Without a doubt, the proposition of a complete ban of firearms will be met with fierce opposition. Critics will point at their eagerness to hunt, shoot for recreational purposes, and use guns for self-defense. However, recreational hunting and target practice are hardly basic rights that must be preserved at all costs.
People are the problem. However, this is not the main reason for the usage of guns? As long as the population is armed with guns, both they and their country are kept safe from invaders and terrorists. “Also, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” (Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution) US district court judge Richard J Leon ruled on Tuesday that a section of the city’s law that requires people who want to carry a gun in public to show a “good reason to fear injury” or another