The reason that they put this in the constitution was that they weren’t sure if the government would be correct so they put that in if the people we ever being oppressed then they had the right and the duty to overthrow said oppression and put in place the form of government that they saw fit. This is yet another reason why guns are not the problem they are simply a tool. All you here in the news is the negatives about guns, for example how many times have you woken up turned on the news and saw that there was a shooting last night. They don’t tell you that there a millions of Americans that didn’t shoot anybody last night. This is just another example of people putting the blame where it doesn’t belong.
The authors' main argument, is against individuals that are not trained to carry arms, nor do these individual carry arms to maintain a free state. But they believe it's their right. People who claim to believe in the "Right to Bear Arms," doctrine think that it refers to individuals. However there are a lot of people that misinterpret this document, they believe this document gives the individual the right to keep and carry arms. In today's society guns are not necessary unlike the uncertainties people had of the new frontier, there are no longer hostile forces to contend with, nor are there any fierce animals, therefore unrestricted gun laws are becoming a disaster, in this society.
In a country full of violent crime, the United States continues to embody the gun as integral to it's protection and culture. While the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution grants the people the right to bear arms, the people must on the contrary protect themselves from those who bear them. In my view, guns give people a false sense of security and are more of a nuisance than a benefit. Guns are a threat to the peace and safety of society. Therefore, since it is unlikely that all guns will disappear in the United States, legislation must be enacted to ban and cease the further manufacture of the types of firearms involved in more violent crime than all others; handguns and assault-weapons.
An Argument For Gun Rights Everyone should have the right to own a gun. Forget the little fact that the Second Amendment grants us the right to own a firearm for one second. Most of us can agree that a gun is a useful tool. After all, law enforcement and the military swear by theirs. It also doesn’t make sense to blame an inanimate object rather than the individual behind it and the reasons why gun violence occurs.
Placing a ban on many of the weapons that private citizens own today has stirred an uproar as to what this new ban will do to a nation who takes pride in its amendments. Many people believe that there is no way possible to effectively enforce this new weapons ban and that it does take some of the rights away previously given to American citizens through the Bill of Rights. Determining the effectiveness of the weapons ban of 2013, and exploring the differences between the proposed ban, and the weapons ban of 1994 will prove to be
Gun Violence Essay I believe if the government started banning guns and other weapons it would not limit gun violence. Just trying to ban a weapon or guns, wouldn’t stop the person from trying to commit the crime he or she is wanting to commit. I believe the only way they could reduce it is if they actually go door to door to every house in the United States and take every gun that that person has, and that still wouldn’t be enough. People will eventually find out that that’s what the government is doing and most likely try to hide their weapons if they wanted to keep them that bad. That’s why I think it would only reduce gun violence, not make it go away completely.
Most agree that gun-related injury or death of innocent citizens should never be tolerated, but there are opinions on the course to take in an effort to discover a solution. This paper will offer problems and solutions associated with past and present efforts to manage the issue of gun-related injuries/death. This paper will also render the discoveries and opinions of the above-mentioned group members as it relates to this controversial topic. Stricter gun-control laws do not help prevent gun-related injuries/deaths One method to prevent gun-related injuries/deaths is to make serious efforts to treat depression, mental health issues, and drug abuse in society. A large number of gun-related injuries/deaths are committed by members of society that have untreated disorders and others that simply neglect firearm safety rules and existing gun-control laws.
Gun Control I do not believe in gun control. In this paper, I am going to tell you why I believe that gun control is not necessary. I hope that I am able to persuade you in this paper to believe that guns should not be controlled. In my opinion, hunting would be much more difficult because you could not use certain guns, and this is not fair to the hunter. In my research of this topic, I have found a lot of political debates in which many political figures are found saying they are on one side or the other.
"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." (James Earl Jones, Online). Banning all or some weapons is not the solution to decreasing the increased gun related violence in the United States.
Some disagree and think stricter laws will not help, like the article titled “The Case Against Banning Guns” by Shiha Dalmai. According to that article we should be “... focusing less on preemptively thwarting prospective attackers and instead boosting the defense capacities of prospective victims.” I disagree. We cannot fight gun violence with more gun violence. Furthermore, just because we have guns does not mean we can use them safely or that we will be safe. The best example of this is the American Sniper Chris Kyle.