Even though gun laws prevent deaths, they infringe so many rights in the immutable Bill of Rights, which is one of the foundations of the great United States. Gun laws give too much power to the government and way less from the people, which will lead to government corruption. And, stated by ClearPictureOnline.com,”Guns don 't kill people, people do. We need to concentrate on the values and morals of our citizens and at the role the media plays in glorifying violence and the lack of respect for law.” (Shootout: Do We Need More Gun Control Regulations?) What people don 't understand is that they are taking away their own freedoms with Gun Control.
On one side people say the federal government's involvement in gun laws would infringe upon people’s second amendment rights. On the other side, people say the government should act. In the case, in increasing gun laws the federal government should act. Since the beginning of the United States the choice of gun law has been left to the states and because of this many states have lackadaisical about implementing gun laws. Currently, Idaho and Montana don’t have any of the seven regulations stated above.
Guns are undoubtedly dangerous yet, unlike most dangerous items they are far more controversial to talk about. There are two extreme positions on this topic that many can fall into when talking about firearms. Some want to ban guns completely, while the other side feels like guns are a right granted by our constitution and do not need regulation but instead, educate gun owners on the proper usage of a firearm. There are some flaws in both arguments. The problem with banning guns is that we should protect ourselves if the need arises.
The second amendment has been under the microscope for quite some time know. Determining the meaning, gun control supporters misinterpret the amendment and believe that the amendment should protect the states right to bear their own military. However, the correct interpretation is the right of an individual to bear arms. Gun control supporters are trying to take this freedom away, because there scared of gun. Guns aren’t dangerous, people are dangerous.
American subjects need to know their rights, obligations and security of owning a handgun. The second alteration says, "A very much controlled civilian army being important to security of a free express, the privilege of the general population to keep and carry weapons should not be encroached." The second revision was made for two things. It arrives for to begin with, to ensure the people right to have arms for self-protection and self-conservation. The second reason is identified with the volunteer army.
Throughout history, any topic related to guns means a plethora of problems. One of the most controversial issues our nation faces today is gun control laws. This controversy has been created due to the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states the right of citizens to bear arms; “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” (Cornell Law School). Anti-gun control laws believe that the amendment guarantees the right to bear any kind of firearms. On the other hand, we have does that believe that more controls laws should be implemented since the 2nd amendment was for the right of States to have an armed militia during wartime.
The First Amendment of The Constitution is engraved in the minds of the American people for being the guarantor of the Freedom of Speech clause. Nevertheless, the vagueness of said clause has been subjugated to challenges that ask; “Should Freedom of Speech be regulated?” The Supreme Court appeared to be inconsistent for creating answers on a case-by-case basis. However, in the midst of said inconsistency, the Supreme Court’s most compelling standard to determine if speech can be constitutionally restricted is if said speech abridges people from other constitutionally guaranteed rights. To begin, establishing a line between constitutionally protected speech and regulated speech proved to be a daunting task for the Supreme Court. Most importantly, it meant that the Supreme Court was going to run into another major issue; Whether or not individuals would be partially abridged of their Freedom of
I wish I could have a gun of my own to carry with me when and wherever I please. I’m against gun control I wish people with guns weren 't limited to their selection but also believe not everyone should be able to get a gun license and own and carry a gun. I wish the Government were stricter on getting guns. Not everyone should be able to carry a gun. But the americans who would pass the test earn their right to bear arms.
Concealed Weapons The gun laws and restrictions have become a very controversial topic in the world today. The people of the United States are nearly spilt on whether or not there should be stricter gun laws, but more people lean towards the stricter side of the line. Although many would argue that stronger gun laws will increase crimes, stricter gun control legislation is an attack on the 2nd Amendment, and there can be no ‘Partial Restriction’ of fundamental rights. Many people question the assumption of whether citizens who carry have an affect on violent crimes. Whether than actually associating the crime with a person with or without a legal permit of a concealed weapon.
If a conflict theorist examined the modern issue of gun control, they would find that this fits the definition almost perfectly. The majority leader in Congress are those who identify as conservative and assert their dominance as gun rights activists by neglecting to reform the current legislation dealing with the legality of guns—whereas the minority in Congress, those who identify as more liberal, are attempting to pass new legislation in hopes creating stronger gun control regulations. Conflict theorists, as their name suggests, can identify social conflicts within society; however, it neglects to explain why people work well together, “as such they are now of a consequence not before equaled in human history-and at their summits” (Mills); as previously mentioned, Mills would agree that there a social problem but would not know what brings the groups of people together. It is simple to understand how groups of people can disagree, but what brings them together in long run? While a common belief, such as gun control regulation, might divide or bring people together, not everyone is able to agree on every social aspect of life.
There would be a huge debate about the Second Amendment and opponents will argue about how the Second Amendment also referred to individuals in America and how the amendment protects individual gun ownership. Chairperson of Revolution PAC, Lawrence Hunter, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to bear laws is as primary and as essential to maintaining liberty. The rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty described in the Bill of Rights.” Supporters might argue and state how its original meaning was intended to protect the militia, but opponents believe otherwise. Opponents of more female protection might say that Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A survey ran in December of the year 2014 resulted that American males were owning a gun protect them from being victimized.
In his article, ¨So You think You Know the Second Amendment,” Jeffrey Toobin, points out the duplicity of the NRA in their quest to re-interpret the Second Amendment. Toobin emphasizes that “for more than a hundred years” the “Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well” had found that the Second Amendment “conferred on state militias a right to bear arms- but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.” Toobin poisons the well when he says, “Enter the modern National Rifle Association.” Introducing a paragraph of critical comments about the group identifies this as an unwelcome appearance of the NRA. This suggests that the NRA’s participation in the debate is likely to be unwelcome and disruptive. Another example of propaganda
Self defense and hunting are the most common reasons for owning a weapon in the U.S. Although this Amendment declares restricting firearms unconstitutional, it is nationally debated whether the use of weaponry is a collective or personal matter. The second Amendment was put into action in 1791. Those who shaped the Constitution wanted to see to it that basic rights were protected, such as the right to bear arms. In fact, many of the Founding Fathers owned guns and collected them.