The murder rate would go through the roof. It is common sense that when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will find a way to get a gun. Because they are criminals, they would find ways to hide guns from the police. Drugs are a good example of this. Drugs are illegal, but people still find ways to have them.
In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause stated “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century as properly but, not overly regulated (Roleff 69).
If a person desires to rob a store or murder someone, he or she is not going to be worried about breaking a gun ordinance. Handgun bans remove an extremely valuable self-defense method from citizens. If guns are banned in the United States, then what will happen if someone breaks into your home? Most likely they will have a weapon, and if you call the police, they will already had a chance to kill you and taken all of your possessions by time the cops come. The best solution would be to defend yourself with a gun, but if this gun control law passes, if you shoot the burglar, you will probably be framed rather than the actual criminal because you had a gun and the thief did not.
Those against the gun control argue that it 's a private initiative for a criminal to have interaction in crime, whether or not he holds a gun or not. During this regard, he doesn 't need to possess the gun for him to carry a weapon. A lot of comparisons are created between alternative weapons that wont to kill individuals and also the guns that are continuously blamed for getting used in killing individuals. Individuals can and have used crude weapons such as screwdrivers, knives, ext. Showing that they the killing would still have taken place, within the absence of the gun.
[and] such declarations should make a part of [the United States’ frame] of government” (Document B). This document limited the King's power. By the Barons stopping the KIng from doing anything they wanted they limited the KIng's government. The framers limited the government by making Amendments In the Bill of Rights. The branched cannot pass any law that is unconstitutional or against the people.
This makes us wonder why people can be so defensive over something like a gun that is so dangerous and has lead to a lot of deaths in the American society. Gun control is essential in our society today because it will help prevent unnecessary shootings and crime rate Gun control will play a major part in the decrease of the crime and murder rate. Therefore, in my point of view, guns should be totally controlled and regulated by the government. If gun ownership is controlled by the government, only a limited number of people will be allowed to own guns. In addition, the regulations will make it difficult for people to access guns unless they have a concrete reason as to why they need the weapon.
Thesis 1: Charlton Heston is directly responsible for the large amount of gun ownership in America and is thus responsible for the large amount of gun related violence in America. If he stopped his rallying then gun violence would drop. Response: I disagree with this statement because Charlton Heston only promotes legal ownership of guns, and he does not support any form of violence and only encourages guns be used for self defence.
The second amendment states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right people to keep and bear Arms, shall be infringed.” The 2nd amendment has been in contribution over 200 years. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. James Madison introduced this amendment. This amendment was created by the founding fathers to protect individual rights to own a gun and limit the government’s power.
“A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that "legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death"(-https://gun-control.procon.org/). There is such a thing as an unlicensed dealer selling handguns without a background check and proper documentation and it is legal. Those gun buyers are mainly causing chaos with mass shootings and yet others think the Second Amendment defends the right to own a weapon for “self-defense”. It is time for tougher gun control laws; the safety of the citizens depends on a safe environment free of guns from those using them for villainous purposes such as mass shootings or homicides.
To Justice Scalia, this means that the individual has “the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (Scalia, 4). The question at stake, however, is not whether the individual or collective is protected but the scope of the right in question. In other words, while it is clear that the amendment protects the right to use guns for military services but does not protect its use for crimes, what rights does it encompass in between those extremities, such as the right to carry a weapon for personal self-defense? A more natural reading of the amendment, where the prefactory clause is read chronologically before the operative clause, shows the text’s intent to solely protect the rights of militia. This is proven, as pointed out in the dissent, by the fact that states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania explicitly articulated in their Declaration of Rights at the time the separate right of individuals to bear arms for self-defense.
The second amendment in the United States Constitution gives the right of the people to keep and bear arms which means the people of the United States have the right to have guns and use them. The argument on on gun control is not logical as the second amendment states that the people of the United states have the right to bear arms. Although you can lose your second amendment rights by convicting a misdemeanor involving domestic violence, the government can not take away guns unless another amendment is added to the constitution to abolish the 2nd amendment. In the constitution no amendments can be removed but another amendment can be added to ratify that amendment such as the ban of liquor. After the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting fear struck the nation.
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.
Gun Control "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." As Thomas Jefferson stated, this right of citizens is a way of self defense. This has been a right of the people in America for centuries, why should this right be taken away now? Enforcing of this law could increase attacks, restrict good citizens, and take away a means of defense from the people.
People also “...support the rights of hunters, sport shooters, and recreational gunmen.” (openreader.org).Criminals are already breaking the law, so adding more won 't deter them. “Criminals will get hold of guns – indeed, by definition, if guns are outlawed, one becomes a criminal just by acquiring one – and leave non-criminals more vulnerable than ever.” (bigthink.com). Gun control laws do not help deter, and only slightly inconvenience them.