The Pros And Cons Of Handgun Possession

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.

First, The Second Amendment protects your rights. The 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." This amendment states your undeniable right to have a gun. So, if stricter Gun control law were to be enforced, not only does it go against the constitution, but it also obstructs your ability to protect yourself. In District of Columbia et al.

Welcome to Change Welcome to the 21st century where some people can’t choose between sport or protection. Should gun control be set in the United States? Such as in the article “10 Advantages and Disadvantages of Gun Control” it shows the court wouldn 't have to waste time on guns or in the article “Arguments for Gun Control” showing that many mentally unstable people die each year. Found in the article “The Pros and Cons of Gun Control” it shows how gun cultural will be wiped completely away. Gun violence occurs based on the unstable people in control of the gun not the gun itself.

“There have been fewer than 20 terror-related deaths on American soil since 9/11 and about 364,000 deaths caused by privately owned firearms.” (Burnett, 2015) Using a second amendment is part of an old rule. We have to start changing this. Nowadays, the police are widely spread, which means people are quite safe and there is no need for keeping guns. If guns were to be banned, criminals would have to buy weapons from black markets and illegal places, which are maybe unreachable due to their lack of knowledge. When your enemy or opponent attacks you with a gun you probably will have absolutely no chance of escaping, so you are dead.

Therefore, why won’t people agree with gun control if it will help reduce crimes? Gun control has been an important topic for the past few years. According to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear

This means America isn’t completely controlling who all can get guns — nobody is. While universal background checks seem like common sense, gun lobbyists say that criminals could just get their guns from the black market so there is no point controlling all gun sales (Sullum). Despite this, if the checks stopped only one person, they would be effective. The solution to the problem regarding controlling all gun sales is a simple one — implement universal background checks.

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. The second amendment was made so that the people have a right to a militia, and guns, if a tyrannical government took over. The constitution also states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...”(US Const. amend.II) The exact reason the second amendment was put in place was to protect the people from the very reason the American Revolution was fought. Taking away guns or controlling them more than they

Gun control means control, it means control for the government and government start controlling the people, Gun control is a board term that covers any sort of restriction on what kinds of firearms can be sold and bought, who can posses or sell them, where and how they can be stored or carried. Gun should be allowed anywhere,citizens need guns for self defense, the Second Amendment provides the United States people the rights to bear arms despite the fact more guns equal more crime. In my opinion Gun control is not a problem, but to other people guns is an issues. To some people gun control is a crime issue, it is a right issue. In my opinion Gun control is a safety issue, an education issue, a racial issue, and a political issue among others.

Topic: Ownership of Guns for non-professional reasons should be illegal in the United States General Purpose: To argue. Specific Purpose: The specific purpose of this speech is to argue for outlawing private gun ownership in the United States. Central Idea/Thesis Statement: Private ownership of guns in the United States should be illegal. Various specific reasons are presented to support this statement: (1) Banning private ownership of firearms, and, their distribution, would save a large number of lives that are lost as the result of gun violence. (2) Banning the private ownership of guns would also save lives that are lost due to successful suicide attempts with firearms.

Rules on background checks and gun licenses should be compulsory. Supplementary, gun training and firing tests would reduce any possible outcomes of accidental shootings. The American citizens don’t want firearms banned from America. Banning firearms are not the answer, but the rules regarding them should be firm to protect all

By limiting the freedom to own guns with measures like the Undetectable Firearms Act or the unsuccessful Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, our 2nd Amendment rights become increasingly at risk from being taken away. The solution is not in restrictions on gun ownership, but the education that comes with gun ownership. The government should consider the prospect of providing gun safety training to congress as an alternative to gun control. The National Rifle Association did a study on gun violence. They conclude that “gun safety has proven to be effective against gun homicide” (NRA 2013).

If we would get rid of guns, that would trigger a whole new battle of crime to worry about. We would have to worry about the rape crime going up if Americans weren’t allowed to have guns. Today the world is not safe against anything, why take away the source of keeping this world semi safe. Our 2nd amendment wasn’t used for just the military. “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.” I get were the critics think that the word militia means military, but that’s simply not true.

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.

Therefore, there need to be more laws and limitations when it comes to selling a gun either through a private or public seller. Max Ehrenfreund also says that “Requiring background checks for private sales and transfers would make it harder for convicted felons to buy guns secondhand, but some would still buy guns as a favor to brothers or boyfriends who wouldn 't qualify themselves (Ehrenfreund). Whether someone is selling a gun from a private or public party there needs to be background checks. Background checks need to be more invasive to ensure public safety. Former President Barack Obama once said that “I am taking within my legal authority to protect the American people and keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people.

The best contention for the insurance of the privilege to have arms is the Second Amendment. The motivation behind the alteration, and the whole Constitution, is to build up specific rights that can 't be annulled or changed by our legislature. Be that as it may, the wording of the alteration has been a wellspring of level headed discussion. The principle contention is that the revision accommodates a local army, and that the "right to keep and remain battle ready" is alluding to civilian army individuals as it were. However, the correction likewise expresses that it is the privilege of "the general population" to keep and carry weapons.