Right To Posses A Gun example essay topic

Guns in Today's Society In the United States today, gun control has become a very big issue in the lives of its citizens. People arguing with each other over whether it is our constitutional right to be able to obtain and bear any kind of arms that we choose or that it only belongs to the militia. Many arguments come up over whether or not just average people can show up at a gun show and sell a gun to any person without giving them a background check first. Not only do they want back ground checks they want restrictions, and bans. Should there be bans on certain kinds of weapons?

If so what kind of weapons? Should any person be able to buy a gun anytime or any place? Are people getting the right picture on what guns do for the country or are they getting deprived of information? It was shown that, "Out of 300 evening news segments, anti-gun stories outnumbered pro-gun stories by 164 to 20" (Dickens 1). This is an outstanding number that shows that the media plays a huge role in what people think about the issue of gun control.

If all they see is guns involved with murders, and not involved with self-defense; how much longer will we have our guns? All of these things are factoring in to the issue of gun control and how important it is to some people and hated by others. In this paper I will lay out different views, arguments, and issues that could affect gun collectors, hunters, and the every day citizen for years to come Gun control is in issue that dates back to the early 1900's, near the times of prohibition. The first federal gun law was passed in 1927 which made it illegal to send weapons through the mail.

This law did not really prevent the trade of firearms because people would just ship them other ways such as, trains, boats and cars. To follow up on this law the congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934. This law consisted of, "Didn't actually outlaw machine guns or sawed-off shotguns, but it imposed a 200$ tax on their manufacture, sale, and ownership" (Henderson 16). As you can see the Federal government began to step in early on in this nation's history.

This is not a new issue it has been debated for years whether or not the government should be able to restrict America's right to bear arms. One of the big arguments on the issue of gun control and gun regulations is that the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. It is our given right to be able to have guns in our households, cars, or in our possession. There should be no rule on where we can carry a gun and where we can not. Guns are used to protect the well being of American families and individuals from the predators off the street.

We should be able to posses any kind of gun that we choose. If Americans want to use an AK-47 to protect ourselves than we should have the right to. Gun collectors who want to go and buy an automatic machine gun can not because the democrats put a ban on it. It is clearly state here, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" (second amendment). That clearly states right there that the people should have the right to bear arms and never specifies what kind. On the other side of the spectrum is the fact that the constitution gives the right to bear arms to the militia not to the people.

In the constitution it does state that Americans have the right to bear arms but it seems as though it is involved with the militia. It can be interpreted that the constitution does not give the right to the people as one man quoted", "The contemporary meaning of the Second Amendment is the same as it was at the time of its adoption. The Federal Government may regulate the National Guard, but cannot disarm it against the will of state legislatures. Nothing in the Second Amendment, however, precludes Congress or the states from requiring licensing and restrictions of firearms; in fact, there is nothing to stop an outright congressional ban on private ownership of all handguns and all rifles" " (Henderson 17).

This quote shows that the gun control advocates do not think that the right to bear arms for a citizen is a constitutional right. They believe that people do not have the right to carry guns and posses them in there own homes. They believe people should not be able to carry around guns wherever they please for many reasons. It puts innocent Americans in danger if at any point the person with a gun loses his cool and begins to shoot. If any person can carry around a gun then where can a person feel safe from harm?

Guns are the cause of many homicides in the United States and around the world, and should be kept from the wrong hands. Many people are willing to give up there rights to bear arms in order to keep guns from getting in the wrong possession. In 1994 there was a bill enacted called the "Brady Bill" and it made it so that a person had to wait up to five business days on a handgun purchase. This bill made it so that that convicted felon or offenders could not purchase a handgun. It also required that authorities do background checks on the purchasers. This bill proved to actually do some good in the fact that it kept guns out of the hands of criminals.

This bill made a slight if any difference, "In the first seventeen months of the Brady Bill, 7 people were convicted of illegal attempts to buy handguns" (Just facts. com 2). The long term affect of the Bill for the three years that it lasted were, "There have been 242,000 background checks that have denied prospective purchasers to buy a handgun from a licensed gun dealer. Out of these, 9 people have been convicted of illegal attempts to buy handguns" (just facts. com 2). These points make it evident that the bill yes, did keep the guns out of 16 sets of bad hands but what about the two-hundred thousand? It deprived those American citizens the right to purchase a handgun.

That is why in July of 1997 the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill was in fact unconstitutional. Now in the United States every gun dealer, manufacturer and distributor must complete a National Instant Check System. This is used to find out whether a customers name comes up as a convicted felon, fugitive or some kind of domestic offender. This is a great way to stop certain people from getting there hands on weapons in which they could use to commit crimes. In the first year of operation, "some 180,000 prohibited buyers were stopped from illegally buying firearms" (web 5). That is a significant number of people who where denied the right to obtain a firearm.

Though they were people who had committed crimes in the past how do we know that they have not changed? We do not therefore the government has no right to deny them the right to own a firearm. They need to protect there homes and there families to. If they really want to go get a gun they will go and find one on the black market. Nothing is going to stop a person from getting a gun if they want one. There is no sense in violating a person's constitutional right just because they have a criminal record.

During the Clinton presidency he signed a bill that put a ban on 18 models of different types of assault weapons. This ban helped keep semi-automatic weapons off the streets of American cities and states. The number one contributor to the deaths of law enforcement officers were automatic weapons used by the criminals. With this ban passed it help stop criminals from stockpiling automatic weapons and weapons with clips that hold more than ten rounds. It also helps to stop massive attacks on a group of people, like school shootings and gang affiliated activities. It also is said that the ban will make it harder on terrorist to get there hands on the guns.

Preventing them from having these weapons will make it easier on the police and the nation as a whole. Though the ban sounds like a worthy cause it is proven that the ban did not reduce violence by very much. A professor from Pennsylvania reported, "We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence" (Washington times 1). There it is shown that the ban had little or no impact on the amount of violent gun related attacks in the United States.

Even before the ban was passed it was shown that these kinds of weapons are very rarely used in violent crimes, "Assault weapons were used in 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the enactment of the 1994 ban" (Handgun free. org 2). The reason that this bill was passed was to satisfy people who are against guns, not to make our country safer. Not much thought or research was put into this bill, people just think automatic weapons and directly think of crime, which for the most part is proven to be wrong. It deprives the right of the American citizen to purchase a certain gun they he may want. Why?

Because many people believe that no one needs that much power. A man was asked if he was in favor of banning assault weapons again he replied "I do not need an AR-15 and nobody else did, neither" (Gon 12). But when the man told him that he did not need a 225 hp engine on his bass boat he quickly disagreed. This shows that sure, no one needs a gun or engine that big to get the job done, but it should be their choice to make, no the governments. In America today there is a controversial issue that seems to affect the lives of the everyday American. This issue involves the "Gun show loophole", this allows any person to purchase a gun without any sort of background check.

Any person can set up shop at a gun show and sell firearms to buyers. This is becoming a big problem, it is allowing criminals, kids, and terrorist in some cases to obtain firearms, that otherwise they would not be able to get there hands on. For example the girl that bought the guns for the two kids to use in the columbine shooting bought the guns from a gun show. The girl was quoted saying that, "She wishes that there was a law that made the dealer giver her a background check, because she would have never bought the weapon" (hand gun free 2).

If this loophole had not been there the girl would have never bought the weapon and the lives taken that day could have been sparred. It is shown that the second leading source of guns obtained in a crime come from a gun show. This shows that gun shows is helping in increasing the crime rate in the United States dramatically. But from my point of view I think that the gun show loophole is all right. It gives those people who can not buy a gun from a dealer a chance to posses one. No one should be denied the right to posses a gun in this land of the free.

Just because the person has a criminal record does not mean that he is going to go out and use that gun in a crime. Yes, some of them do, but the ones that do will get there hands on a gun if they want one bad enough. But any United States citizen should have the right to posses a gun for self-defense and if they use it for a crime then put them in jail. Also if you stop the private owners from being able to sell guns, then it will shut down gun shows and prevent the average American from making money. Gun control has become not only a nation wide issue but has also become a state issue. Many states are taking gun control on themselves and making gun laws that deprive citizens of there right to bear arms.

In the town of Wilmette, Illinois a young woman got a handgun and went into an elementary classroom and began to shoot and kill young children. The girl was angry that she had gotten fired from her babysitting job, so she decided to take it out on the kids. Right after the incident the county had a meeting and decided to pass an ordinance stating that no person in the county could posses a handgun. Later on that year, a family living in the area got there home broken into and car stolen. The man of the house went and got his handguns loaded them and put them under his mattress for protection. The burglar returned later that week, and when the man heard the alarm go off he went downstairs with his gun and shot the burglar.

Though the man was not charged for shooting the burglar he was sentenced to one year in jail and a twenty-five thousand dollar fine. This man was simply protecting himself and his family from an intruder and was sentenced to jail for doing it. For exercising his constitutional right an innocent man was put in jail for one abrupt incident. That is not were it all ends but that is where the banning of all guns begin.

It begins at the local and state level slowly trying to build its way up to the federal level. They are not only trying to take away handguns but are also trying to take away guns that can penetrate body armor which include deer rifles. They are trying to take away the rights of deer hunters and sportsman all across the nation. Basically all they are leaving the hunters with is a simple double barreled shotgun, if were lucky. As one man put it, "Look at the overall efforts of the people pushing gun-control laws, and think what will happen when they realize your double barrel shotgun can be sawed off and used as an assault weapon" (GON 12).

The quote says it all; sooner or later they are going to get our guns if we do not put the heat on them now. Similar to what some people do to tobacco companies are now also filing suit against gun manufacturers. Americans are getting upset that people are obtaining weapons with such ease and tend to blame it on the manufacturer. In a court case that was filed in New York the plaintiffs were suing the company Accu-Tek for the deaths of there children. They claimed that, "Gun manufacturers deliberately marketed their products in a way that they should have known increased danger that the guns would be misused, leading to injuries or deaths" (Henderson 82).

With this statement made, these people honestly thought that the manufacturers were trying to make it easier for criminals to buy guns and use them in illegal acts. This is not fair to the gun manufacturers across America. They are getting sued and harassed for simply trying to make a living, and supply guns to American citizens who they hope will use the weapons responsibly. This case was brought before a jury and the manufacturers were ordered to pay a fine of 560,000 dollars in negligence. These innocent manufacturers are getting sued because this nation wants someone to blame for there misfortune, and suing gun manufacturers and trying to prevent the sales of guns is not the way it should be done.

Many people today make the argument the guns kill and that the people with guns are more likely to kill. Guns in fact do kill but it is the person behind the gun that is pulling the trigger. Guns are an essential part of our country, without them we would have never won the American Revolution and established freedom from Britain. Never would have won the first and second World Wars and so on. We need guns in this country not only to defend our country against invasion but against members of our own establishment. Guns are going to fall into the hands of the wrong people there is no doubt about that.

All we can do as a nation is try to prevent that from happening and continue to keep our country safe and fair.

Bibliography

Americans for gun safety. "The Gun show Loophole: background checks at gun shows". AGS. 2004.
Americans for gun safety. 1 Nov. 2004 web Dickens, Geoffrey.
How the Network News Media are spinning the gun control debate". NRA-TLA. 30 March. 2000.
NRA. 1 Nov. 2004 web Ronnie.
Right to Bear Arms". GON. September 2004: pg.
12. Henderson, Harry. Gun Control. New York: Facts on Files, 2000.
Lee, Robert. "Defending the Home". The New American. 22 March. 2004.
The New American. 1 Nov. 2004 web Society Institute.
Gun Control in the United States". Soros. 2000.
Open Society Institute. 1 Nov. 2004 web Jerry.
Ban on assault weapons didn't reduce violence". Washington Times. 2004.
News World Communications. 1 Nov. 2004 http: Washington times.
com / national /20040816-114754-1427.
htm. Unknown. "Brady Bill". Just Facts. 30 March. 2002.
handgun control. org. 1 Nov. 2004 web "The Gun Show Loophole".
Handgun free America. 2000.
Handgun-free America. 1 Nov. 2004 web Const.