Ban Them All. Essay

294 Words2 Pages
In “Ban the things Ban them all” by Molly Irvin’s she speaks mainly about the second Amendment, and how it is interpreted differently by many. As well as how only well trained people/soldiers with experience should use them. With this stated by molly my thoughts are who is to say who specifically is qualified to be in possession of a firearm let alone be capable of properly using one the second amendment is vague to say so naturally we as a society chose the age and evaluate the mental stability of the person to establish whether or not they can obtain a firearm. In the same way that cars have records guns should to. Explaining who the prevese owner or owners of those car and history report as well guns should have the same regulations. Or at least be enforced in the same way. Irvin’s also uses the example of martial arts to get her point across. Those martial art students are well trained. And know how to disable an offender or anyone else if they chose. With a flick of the wrist basically but she explains that they are disciplined along the way in their training. So just because they could potentially harm others does not mean they will. Or should resort to using a fire arm as your first line of defense. So she uses the martial arts as a comparison. To a person who just buys a gun. And how they won’t have any real experience with a gun but I didn’t like the fact she spread herself so thin. In all the subjects she’d talk about when she could have focused in on a few and really pulled them across in her

More about Ban Them All. Essay

Open Document