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.
Criminals are not known for following the rules so all law abiding citizens have the right to defend themselves by any means needed. You could be going through a tough area of town and having that self defense on you makes you feel a bit more comfortable and safer, protecting oneself and family is a personal duty and the government should not impede the ability of responsible adults to defend themselves from potential harm. You got to take the good with the bad
The right to carry a concealed firearm is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. This right alone should be enough justification for the Legislative Branch of government to mandate all states to abide by this constitutional right of its citizens. The law enforcement within each state alone cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens. Responsible citizens should have the right to protect their families and the states should not impede on this right by not allowing concealed carry (O’Shea, 2012, p. 585). Recently in Wisconsin, there was a good news story displaying the necessity for concealed carry.
“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.” The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the impression that gun control issues should be very black and white. Unfortunately this is not the case. There are too many standpoints to put a number on it. Ranging from absolutely no one should own a firearm, to citizens should be able to roam the streets with bazookas, and everything in between. There are many viewpoints for those who are in favor of gun control.
The reduction of the crime rates following the reduction of gun-related violence can be used to justify gun control. However, the official statistics does not support this assumption. The reasoning that guns cause crimes arises numerous disputations, as it does not consider that guns are just another mean of committing a crime. Pro-gun advocates usually assert, “Guns do not kill people; people kill people.” The Vice President, Wayne Lapierre argued that the best solution to the Newton Massacre was to allow citizens to own guns. He stated”The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (Spitzer,
Many will argue that it is a person’s constitutional right under the second amendment, the right to bear arms. Many will argue this amendment is no longer needed and others will base an entire argument on this amendment alone. The need for citizen to own and possess firearms should be a preference of the city or county of residence. The issue of crime reduction is an area that is discussed when the rights of possession of firearms is argued, the data consistently shows that crime increases when there is no presence of firearms from
Summary of “Ban The Things. Ban Them All.” In the essay, “Ban The Things. Ban Them All,” written by Molly Ivins, she expresses concern about society’s ownership of guns, and how they have grown to be used more of a weapon for show, than for protection. Ivins also argues that the argument of “guns don’t kill people,” doesn’t exist, because she believes that they do, and that that may be all they ever do. Ivins states that she supports the Second Amendment: “A well–regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed,”(437) and that adolescents in our society are NOT part of a well-regulated militia: “[there are] teenage drug dealers…cruising the cites of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles” (437).
His research says that possession of firearms shows no evidence of “more guns less crime”. Research on firearm possession and risk of violent death is reviewed. Also that having guns in the home can also facilitate suicides or homicides and the increased risk of violent deaths. Since guns do not have the ability to load themselves and find a target, every person has to make a conscious decision to commit a crime using a gun. With the new concealed weapons law passed in Illinois, criminals must think about if wonder if their next victim will be carrying a concealed weapon or not.
In my opinion, a certain license should have to be carried at all times to show that the offender has the right to be in possession of a firearm whether it is in their vehicle or home. This license should be shown to law officials when approached by one and if you are in possession of a firearm unlicensed you should be detained. If this law were to take place it would not prevent violence with weapons, but it would reduce the amount of criminals on the loose with firearms. The government, in alliance with the NRA, could start by weeding out all of the unregistered firearms. After a good percentage of the illegal firearms have been put into government hands, they could issue a country wide equivalency test to be able to own or use firearms.
On the other hand, some people believe carrying guns is a not a civilian’s duty; therefore, only military, police-officers and other law enforcement entities should possess them. In his journal article “The Media Campaign Against Gun Ownership: Gun Control Will Not Reduce Gun Violence,” author Phyllis Schlafly states: Despite the claims made by its advocates, gun control will not reduce firearms violence. Supporters of gun controls propagate lies, including inaccurate statistics [that 12 children a day die from guns] on the number of children killed each day by guns and the assertion that access to guns at home leads to an increase in violence…The only way to reduce gun violence is to pass laws that give citizens the right to carry firearms. Criminals are less likely to commit violent acts if they believe their victims could be armed (Schlafly, P. 2001). Thus, the restrictions placed on citizens to not carry guns affect them considerably; when citizens lose the right to own guns, they automatically become