These to men have similar views on the issue such as a law prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers if someone using their produst comittes a crime. Also they both supports instant criminal background checks on people purchasing guns and believes law should apply to gun sales at gun shows. They both also voted for the child safty laws and such. But this is where they part. Obama voted for the AR band and McCain voted against it.
Gun control laws have become such a huge controversy in the United States due to the fact that citizens believe their Second Amendment right is being taken away from them. In my eyes, I believe that extended gun control measures should be taken to ensure that access to assault weapons should be limited to certain people. I believe one deserve a well rounded background check to see if any mental health issues are visible. I also believe you have the right to own a weapon and the government is not trying to take away your hunting rifles, personal permitted handguns, etc. They government is emphasizing more on the fully automatic weapons, explosives, armor and other things that only the military should have access to.
Amongst all the stories swirling around in the media following the Sandy Hook tragedy it may surprise one to discover that handguns, not assault weapons, are used in most of the gun murders in the United States. Despite this many in Congress are pushing to bring back the Clinton-era ban with some extra restrictions and requirements. Although I can understand how frustration and grief following such horrific events can push people to call for action, I do not think that banning certain types of semi-automatic rifles or limiting their magazine capacity will do anything to stem the tide of death. The first hurdle that politicians seeking a new assault weapon ban will have to face is defining what exactly an assault weapon is. Most of the time
The Second Amendment was designed to guarantee the ability of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms for legal purposes (The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, 2010). Even with the current gun control laws and their supporters, there are associations opposing against any and all types of gun control. The opponents of gun control, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the “right to bear arms” is their guarantee under the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. This association also argues the licensing restrictions
In the republic of California, some would say we have some of the worst laws and restrictions in the country. Gun control on American citizens has been attempted ever since the Bill of Rights’ 2nd amendment said, “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 sentence and its meaning have been debated by lawmakers and firearm-bearing citizens to this day, and we can not agree on what our founding fathers intended the amendment to mean. In my mind I see it only one way, the second amendment gives the people the right to own and keep any firearm they feel they should have. One point argued about the second amendment is at the end of the quote, it claims that our right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” This phrase, however, is debated to whether they are talking about the right to simply own a firearm, or to place any limitations on firearms capabilities. The word infringed means to inflict upon a right or privilege.
They asked the court to declare Chicago law banning handguns unconstitutional. Chicago’s law does not expressly prohibit handgun ownership, but Justice Alito argued that it effectively does so. The law requires all owners of firearms to apply for a permit. Most handguns are excluded from the list of approvable firearms, therefore making it nearly impossible for any resident to own a handgun. Both the petitioners were ruled against by the United States District Court Judge and the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Gun casualties and incidents throughout the country have woken the public up from its ignorance and shown them the danger guns can pose to society (Martinez, 2013). While some people want a complete blanket ban on the ownership of guns, others wants an easier access to guns so that every person may look after their own security. Part of what makes the term gun control a very controversial topic is that it’s used in a ambiguous way that does not explain the details of the issue and the demands, apart from literally controlling guns. The two prominent sides of the debate are the groups who ask for liberal gun laws that make it easier for a person to procure guns and conversely, there are groups who want to repeal the second amendment. I personally am a strong believer that an “ideal society” should have no guns; nevertheless crime is a big problem to the citizens of our society and guns are necessary.
I am one that is for stricter gun laws in America, as it is scary to think of future generations where gun ownership is just as common as owning a car. On the Whitehouse website, the first thing that popped up when researching about gun laws and violence with weapons was, “Now is the time to do something about gun violence.” Now to me, this sounds like congress has every intention to do “something” about guns and gun violence, but what? After the Sandy Hook shooting, in Barack Obama’s speech he mentioned that it was an “obligation” for America to do something to prevent events like this from occurring again. The site also says, “Most gun owners are responsible and law abiding.” The key word here is “most”. What about the others who are not responsible and law abiding?
However this right has been abused when guns fall in the hands of senseless murders, robbers, mentally unstable individuals, etc. which generates issues of the debate about gun control in recent years. Republicans and Democrats both stand behind our right protected by the Second Amendment nevertheless we need control over the gun laws. Republicans fully stands behind citizens right to guns, just the same as democrats they believe in regulation to keep down violence levels but philosophy they go against anything that inconveniences constitutional right of gun owners. Democrats in no way wish to undermine the right to the second amendment but do wish to establish strong laws to who can and cannot bear a gun for example restricting guns to be issued in the hands of previous criminals, stalkers, person going under mental services, background checks for gun sales, etc.
Most gun activists stand by the 2nd amendment but does it really make sense to do that lets just think for a second why was the 2nd amendment made? It was made so Americans can protect themselves from danger but do guns really protect us when we are using them to kill other each other and using them to commit acts of terror? The obvious answer is no but lets pause for a moment and just say that people need guns such as hunting rifles to hunt and handguns to protect themselves given certain situations, even with these exceptions there is no need for assault weaponry