This gross oversight has been the core fallacy to many gun control campaigns. The primary reason gun control advocates are unable to prohibit firearms outright is that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess and bear weapons in general. Thinking about this issue from a completely unbiased point of view, one could conclude that just about anything from missiles to rocks can potentially be used as a weapon. The semantics used gun control advocates emphasize the guns lethality but our ancestors used sticks and stones in very lethal ways centuries ago. Imagine how absurd a “sticks and stones” control law would have sounded to them.
One of the major points against gun control is the violation of your second amendment rights, you have the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection. This paper will show there is no common sense in banning all firearms as a means gun control and it leaves law abiding citizens increasingly vulnerable to violent crimes. No Common Sense in Gun Control Over the past forty years, legislators have spent a lot of time, effort and revenue on legislation regarding gun control. Gun control advocates insist that increased gun control will lower the soaring crime rates of the early 70's. However, “recent research on the prevalence of defensive gun use has prompted growing concern that government efforts to regulate gun ownership and use may be counterproductive” (Ludwig, 2000, p. 363).
For example the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 in immediate response the UK government made the possession of hand guns illegal this was possible because of the flexibility of the UK constitution. However in comparison in the USA there have been numerous incidents similar to Dunblane however because of the rigidity if the US constitution the possession of firearms is still legal. This is a clear example of the rigidity of a codified constitution preventing necessary laws being passed moreover it also shows it is difficult for entrenched constitutions to remain up to date. It is argued that the un-codified constitution is too flexible because Parliament and strong governments can change the constitution without constraints. For example the Blair government of 1997 who made a number of constitutional changes such as the removal of
Supporters would suggest that the constitution is fit for purpose. Recent activities that have taken place in the UK would suggest that the constitution is fit for purpose, for example the Scottish referendum. In this essay, I am going to argue that the UK constitution is no longer fit for purpose. The facts that our constitution is uncodified means that there is not much clarity as many individuals/citizens do not know their rights. This means that the government can override our rights, for example the case of the Belmarsh Prison Act 2001 and the Anti-Terrorism Act.
One way these rights could be defined is through a bill of rights that specifies the rights and freedoms of the individual and also defines the legal extent the civil liberty. However, codified constitutions are sometimes to rigid as higher law is harder to change than statute law. It is easier and quicker to introduce an Act of Parliament then to amend a constitution as the Constitution is so entrenched. Therefore, it is difficult to keep a constitution up-to-date, this is very bad, especially in our modern ‘ever-changing environment. Furthermore, if we adopt a codified constitution then one of the key principles in the UK’s representative democracy would be completely undermined, Parliamentary Sovereignty would effectively be abolished as a codified constitution would mean the establishment of an authority higher than
They think the laws and licensing are loose. In 2006, third two states are required the background information checks for purchases firearm (Moorhouse 105). In October 1997, factories of gun in the U.S. accept to install a trigger locks on handguns. It also had a vote about training for all gun users in November, but it failed (Jost 1105). Although I am a supporter of gun control, I think the result of this vote was totally correct because it involved a huge number of the gun users in the United States, and who should pay the money for that training if the
With an un-codified constitution it means that it is very easy for aspects of it to be changed. This becomes an unsettling thought to many given that many of the rules within the constitution are what protect us as citizens and so the idea that this would be very easy to change or even get rid of the rights that protect us is very worrying to some. Liberals argue that if we introduced a codified constitution it would allow human rights to be entrenched thus heavily protecting us as citizens. However in the UK there is already a human rights act that offers some level of protection of these rights. Given that there is already some form of protection it would be fair to argue that the UK doesn’t currently need a constitution as there is and hasn’t been any real threat towards people’s rights.
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.
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
Gun Control = Crime Control Jamie Cain Eng/102 10/01/2013 Mary-Angie Salvá-Ramírez, Ph.D. Since the beginning of time in the United States guns have been a part of the American tradition as a means of a protection and for hunting and sport. Today however, the use of guns has significantly changed. Many people feel that these gun control laws violate American citizen’s second amendment “the right to bear arms”. However, controlling the distribution and sales of registered guns and owners is necessary because of the criminals that use for them for violence and the homicide rates we have in this nation today.