Thesis The debate over the issue of whether or not American citizens have the undisputed right to bear arms is a controversy that has been brought up many times dating back to the late 1800 s. One of the biggest controversies is the true meaning of the Second Amendment of the Constitution and whether or not gun control is constitutional. Even after multiple debates a clear interpretation of the Amendment on which everyone can agree has still not been reached. Both sides continue to decipher the meaning of the law over and over to benefit what they are trying to say. Another important issue is the impact gun regulations and laws have on gun violence.
Gun control advocates claim they are working while gun supporters say all they are doing is making it harder for honest people to buy guns. A third key issue is the question of whether or not more laws is the answer. Supporters of gun control claim it is while the opposition thinks that others solutions would work better. With all the controversy going on, I believe that there is one simple question that will help decide whether or not more gun control is necessary. Assume some criminal is about to put a knife through your chest, and I am standing nearby and I have a gun. There is no time to call for help.
Do you want me to shoot the criminal or not Anyone who answers yes to this question cannot means you are unable to say that guns need to be removed from society. Answering no means that you have a death wish or great confidence in your self-defense abilities. Anyway, for the most part you can assume that people would answer yes to this question. A gun control supporter would have a hard time claiming that guns are bad if they had an experience such as this one. I think that is one of the biggest problems. People fail to look at the good side of a situation and only look at the bad.
They argue out of ignorance and without looking a tall the facts. Arguing with only the information that benefits their point of view and ignoring the rest. That is why gun control advocates and the ideas they propose are ridiculous. This lack of reason is exactly why there should be less gun control in todays society. Statement of Facts One of the biggest controversies over gun control is the meaning of the Second Amendment. The Amendment reads, 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.
In order to avoid any controversy the law must be looked at from the point of view of the men who wrote it and the time in which it was written. The part that is most confusing is the statement, the people. As in the First Amendment, this means all people, not just certain people. The second part that is continually argued over is the meaning of the word militia, a body of men capable of assuming the role of Defender of Home, Country and Liberty. The functions of the militia as stated in Art. I, Sec.
8, cl. 15 of the Constitution are, to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. Thus, the militia has a military function and the arms they carry are protected under the Second Amendment. If there is any question to the need of a militia this quote from Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts is 1789 gives an excellent reason. The use of a militia is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, and the bane of liberty... Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins.
If we allow the government to regulate and ban the only effective method of defense the people have, then on that day this country will no longer be one ruled by the people and for the people, but instead one that has surrendered all its power to the government. Thus destroying the Constitution that this country was built on, and that which protects our rights as American Citizens. Refutation With all the questions over the effectiveness of gun laws a look at what some of the laws have accomplished is needed. One of the more recent laws passed is the Brady Act. Praised for its effectiveness in preventing criminals from buying handguns, it has accomplished very little except for preventing honest people from being able to purchase guns. The five-day waiting period it administered does not prevent criminals from obtaining handguns.
According to the General Accounting Office, in the first 17 months only seven criminals were convicted for attempting to buy a handgun. If you ask me that s not very effective. Based on the claim that new penetrating bullets are killing officers, President Clinton proposed a restriction on armor piercing ammo. However, the FBI reported that 68% of officers killed were not wearing a vest. Of those killed wearing a vest, 95% were shot in unprotected areas. Furthermore, there is no record of an officer ever being killed by armor piercing ammunition.
When talking about the Second Amendment the biggest argument made is that the amendment does not give people the right to own guns. This claim is founded on the belief that the militia mentioned in the Constitution is referring to the national guard. However, in 1986 the U. S. senate ruled that the national guard is not the militia the amendment is referring to.
This means that the able citizens of this country form the militia, whose rights to owning a gun are protected under the Second Amendment. Confirmation With the obvious inability of gun laws to reduce crime it becomes apparent that guns are not the problem. A common phrase that is heard goes, Guns don t kill people, people kill people. This statement is true since gun is only the tool and it takes a person to pull the trigger.
With this in mind, perhaps we should turn our attention to the fact that more than 265, 000 felons convicted in state courts are not sent to prison. Only 23% of convicts are in prison; the rest are on parole or probation. On top of this the average criminal only serves one third of their sentences. If you think about it the justice system may be what needs fixing. The key to reducing the number of gun deaths in this country is not government intrusion, but instead firearm safety training. Many accidents happen because of a lack of proper knowledge on how to handle a firearm.
Children who play with guns do so out of curiosity because no one has ever taught them about guns. Along with this, moderate gun laws, such as instant background checks, are what is needed, if kept to a minimum. Banning more and more guns may reduce gun violence, but it will not eliminate guns from society and will only lead to more and bigger problems, while continuing to take more freedom away from the American people. Conclusion With the apparent failure of gun laws one could agree that more is not the answer.
Banning guns will not solve the crime problem it will only change the method. If guns are not available then another weapon will be used. Simple regulations will not stop a person who is determined to cause someone harm. This is why people should be allowed to own and carry guns: to protect themselves from those kinds of people. Proper education in school and other places to teach how to use a gun and to respect guns as a dangerous weapon is what is needed to reduce gun violence in the future. If we allow the government to ban guns then the American people will be defenseless and powerless to stop the government from taking over or to stop an outside invasion if either were to occur.
This country was born because the citizens were armed and could fight for themselves. How can we remove the very object that help give this country its freedom Bibliography web web u agv / fact . html web web CCG/ccwhypl. htm.