I believe that gun control laws are unconstitutional. Gun Control laws are only taking away our rights given to us in the second Amendment of the Constitution which are protected by the fourteenth Amendment. Forcing people to have background checks before purchasing a gun or making assault weapons illegal will not lower the level of crime that is caused by guns. These laws will only affect law abiding citizens of the United States. Why would a criminal follow gun control laws if he or she is already going to break the law to commit a crime?
Instead, it will only take a toll on the innocent Americans who will not be able to protect themselves in case of an attack. It will also be a violation of people’s right and in addition, the citizens will lose their trust towards their elected leaders. The law enforcers should treat people with respect and fulfil their duty to protect and serve instead of using their power to terrorise them because without these people, they would not be enjoying those privileges. Liberalism is slowly going to change the country, and soon people will be under the rule of a few privileged individuals. Taking away people’s right to own firearms, as Dwyer notes, is a calculated move aimed at leaving the people with no free will.
Do they think that the criminals are going to give up their firearms just because it’s “illegal” to possess them? If current gun control laws put forth by this administration were enacted, law abiding citizens would be the only unarmed population in this country. This would work out well for the criminals who want to take our wallet of rob your home. We as a people need to stand up and let our politicians know that we are more protected when we are allowed to protect ourselves. If the aim of our government is to protect our schools, then why not post an armed serviceman at ever school.
Regulations to help keep this rule organized is fine, but the problem with these bills are that none of them do anything to reduce the crime rate and svae lives. Criminals will not registar their guns because most likely they are stolen and they have no license do to the fact that they are criminals. Ultimately, the only thing that these bill do is keep the honest people honest. John R. Lott did a short survey of 847 criminals that said that they are more concerned robbing a citizen with who is armed with a gun than running into the police. One felon quoted “ If you scare some innocent body with a gun you might not survive, if you get caught and arrested by a cop in America you are sure to survive”.
The say that what is a good idea is not the blanket ban of guns, which is unconstitutional because of new meaning of the second amendment, but rather a continuation of the current limits of guns and gun owners. It may not be “constitutional” for the government to put a complete ban on weapons, but it is proper for it to enact stronger restrictions to keep the rather terrifying weapons away from the people who cannot be trusted with a knife, much less than that of a
This course would give a regular person who wants to carry a concealed weapon the chance to learn about gun safety and how to properly use his gun. This course would be the last step before someone can get their gun, and failure to pass the course would result in not getting the permit or receiving of the person’s gun. Out of all the gun policies there has only been one that has shown to reduce deaths and injuries from public shootings which is to allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. The opposition believes that this statistics is wrong that there are many other reasons that contribute to the fewer deaths and injuries from public shootings. One reason that might have to do with it is the thought that someone is carrying a gun
If there were stricter gun laws in place how are people suppose to feel safe in their homes. Criminals are called criminals for a reason they do not live their life with respect to laws, they always find a loop hole to get what they want. “Gun free zones do little to protect law-abiding citizens, law abiding citizens do not carry guns in these areas, but criminals do; this will only make soft targets for criminals and increase the chance of violent crimes” (2010). Everyone has a constitutional right to bear arms, and legislation will only be taking away the rights of people to protect themselves. Everything can be posed as a threat not just gun, “In 2013 there have been killing sprees with knives and bombs at the Boston Marathon; three people were killed and 264 were injured when the Tsarnaev brothers set two bombs and a student in Houston
He mentions the relating between shrinking the stock of legally purchased guns and people self defend. The public opinion in this point is dangerous to shrink that. They believe should not be to reduce the carry of firearms, but put an end to them being carried by criminals. The government and public goal
People should be allowed to buy and use the weapons with less power and with limited number of bullets. That way if a violent incident happens, it should not be that deadly. The right to possess weapons is beneficial for citizens only when used by sensible people in the right way, or else it can be hazardous to same citizens. The government should connive at the passing of certain laws to make sure that weapons are being used for their citizen's safety and to avoid any future violent
No one will be able to convince me that by putting a ban on guns and magazines no criminals will be able to get their hands on a weapon. The idea that because the gun was designed to kill makes it evil and should be banned is as juvenile as dismissing the array of uses for fire and banning it because it burns. Why should I have to be at fear for