So as you can see from where they stand Obama is a little more for Gun Control while McCain is almost completely Agenst it. My opinion on this issue is that it is our constituional right to have these fire arms and that we should be able to keep them. I had a history teacher tell me once that the one admendment is the only one that keeps the government on edge and doing what the population wants cuz it gives us the power to rebel if the government stopes listening to us. Also I think that if they do band guns like they do in other country’s all they are going to accomplish is taking the guns out of the good guys hands and giving the bad people who will not turn theirs in a free
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
Gun laws Laws over guns in America have been a well-debated topic over for many years. Should we put complete bans on them, and have a government buy back like many other countries, or do we stay true to the second amendment the “Right to bear arms.” The problem is that congress is too scared to do anything about the gun laws for fear of an outburst by the nation, so the issue sits idle until, one day something will have to change. My belief is that there has been too many crimes, too many tragedies involving guns. Too often do we hear that a man, woman, or child have been shot and killed, sometimes by accident too. On the contrary, I am a firm believer in our bill of rights; I believe that they are a good foundation of our government.
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.
One side to this ongoing argument is that all guns in the United States need to be banned. Many Americans feel this way, believing that, “violence is out of control. Guns are a major cause. They should all be banned- the sooner the better.” To be exact nearly three out of four Americans, 73%, believe that guns need to be under a lot more control. The second amendment says “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.” (Bill of Rights).
The argument is usually the same: one side insists that if officials eradicated guns, thus abolishing the Second Amendment, gun violence will somehow go away. Contrarily, the pro- gun side argues that this invades our rights as humans to protect ourselves. It seems ironic that a debate about the morality of building and owning bombs doesn’t flare when a mass bombing kills dozens, sometimes hundreds. For the argument of fairness, one could suggest that purchasing the materials to build a bomb of any kind could be punishable by law regardless of knowing the intent of the individual. Just as a law abiding American citizen seeking to purchase a gun might potentially be prosecuted if the Second Amendment is dropped from the Constitution.
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.
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
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.
Some people feel that the issue of gun control will limit crime and the fact that guns are necessary for self-defense against crime, and that enforcing gun control is a violation against a citizen’s second amendment right to bear arms. Possession of a handgun should be strictly regulated, because they are made solely to kill, and they have even allowed children to easily kill themselves and others, and they have increased the murder rate in the U.S. The reason handguns should be outlawed from citizens is that their main purpose is to kill other human beings. Why would our country allow us to have a right of possessing a deadly weapon? For the most part, our government seems to want to