Another problem with taking guns away, or banning them, is that the government cannot expect everyone to abide by the laws. In past circumstances when guns were banned, criminals were the kind of people that the government wanted to make sure did not have guns. In reality, they were always the ones who still had the guns (Lott). People can say that gun crime is a serious firearm problem, but guns are not always the exact cause of the crime. Even if the government tries to deny groups access to guns, they could still find their way around the law and gain access to one
The Bill of Rights puts limitations on American citizens and are to protect us from harm. The two most important amendments in the Bill rights is amendment one and two. Protecting people’s beliefs and right to protect themselves by carrying an armed weapon are important. Gun control is also an issue that leads to if we should add more restrictions or more freedom. In the Bill of Rights, the first amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” I believe this is the most important to the maintenance
They believe that after the traumatic event that caused them the have this pain that something must be done to ban all firearms regardless of who uses them. Everyone fall on this spectrum and that is the issue no one can be one hundred percent right meaning someone will be unhappy with the result. From constitution being first ratified to today the idea of gun control has still existed. Gun control is the regulation of guns through their purchasing, owning, and use. As such starting with the second amendment of the United States constitution which says, “A well regulated Militia, […and] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
However, there are many facts and points made about how the amendment is supposed to be treated and how guns are supposed to be used for both individual rights and militia. In fact, “The US Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that this amendment referred to the individual’s right to own a gun for self-defense. Other federal courts have ruled that this amendment pertains only to the rights to form and maintain a militia. Advocates of gun control point out that the writers of the Constitution could not have imagined some of the weapons that are currently available or the amount of damage that could be inflicted by one person armed with one of these guns. Gun control opponents insist there is a constitutional right for individuals to have weapons and vehemently argue against any restrictions
More specifically, I believe that gun violence will always be an issue whether they are banned or not. If someone plans on hurting someone, they will not care about rules. For example, Guns are very easy for people to buy, but how is the seller going to know what they plan to do with it. It is not like they are going to say that they are going to kill someone with it. Therefore, I conclude that banning guns is not worth it because people who want to use them for negative reasons will even if they are banned.
These types of weapons only benefit the military and there is no reason for a regular citizen to own a military level weapon. Opponents argue that they can be used for personal protection and recreational use but there is no logical reason to use a semiautomatic gun when you’re just trying to “have fun.” A New York Times editorial argued, “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership.” As many Americans agree assault weapons are far deadlier than other firearms (Assault Weapons). “From 1984 to 2012, assailants who used large capacity ammunition magazines were able to shoot 161 percent more people and kill 78 percent more victims than those who used a weapon holding 10 bullets or fewer,” Argued Richard Aborn, president of the Citizens Crime Commission in New York (Assault Weapons). This type of gun should remain for military use only and not be an easy access to the
So they tried with all of their power to stop Gura from pursuing the case, however Gura was determined to convince the court. At first the NRA tried to hijack his case and replace him with their own lawyer, which failed leading the NRA to lobby congress to pass a law which would overturn the D.C. gun laws rendering Gura’s case moot. The NRA knew that if Gura were to lose and the court made the decision that the second amendment didn’t protect individual’s rights to bear arms they would lose legal ground which they had fought so hard over. During February of 2003 Gura was able to finish the complaint he would file with the federal trial court in Washington. It was actually a rather short complaint, consisting of only a few pages with no extraneous issues or “trap doors.” His argument was that “the second amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to possess a functional personal firearm,” His choice for the lead plaintiff was a woman by the name of Shelly Parker who had fought drug dealers in her Capitol Hill neighborhood.
Although, “Gun Control That Actually Works,” is a short piece of text, the reader only gets provided with one idea. The short article is filled with useful information about the acts and laws of guns, however, it never really uses any emotion while explaining the problem.Throughout the years, gun violence has affected millions directly and indirectly. To truly convince the readers of the point Alan was making he should have included pathos in his argument. The article, “End the Gun Epidemic in America,” The Editorial Board, demonstrated the argument with pathos by her first line, “All decent people feel sorrow and righteousness fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California.” Berlow would have hooked his audience more by using more of that logic. More people would have supported his article and the point he was trying to make.
Looking up the family history can be a big break on whether or not if this is person is acceptable. Even though there is already a “National Instant Criminal Background Check”, there needs to be a law that doesn 't disturber “big guns”. Big guns shouldn 't even be allowed to be sold in the United States. The reason being is that some people 's backgrounds are a disappointment
However, there's too much freedom in regards to gun control. The second amendment clearly states that the need for arms is only necessary in case of a militia to form. We as a country are no longer in the need of a militia since we are not in the wild west (constitution amend 2). Another valid argument that if we were ever in a deficit of soldiers we would draft them like it happened in the Vietnam war. The second amendment says that we have the right to bear arms, but it never specifies their intentions.