The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “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 was part of the Bill of Rights that was added to the Constitution on December 15. 1791. The purpose of this Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government, that was established in 1789, from disarming the state militias and reestablishing them with a Federal standing army. It was an important concern in the past, today it is unrelated. However, today’s society is completely different than in 1791. I truly believe gun laws should have a lot more restrictions for the safety of our people.
James Madison originally suggested the Second Amendment soon after the Constitution was officially established as a way to grant more power to the state militias, today they are recognized as the National Guard. It was considered a compromise between Federalists – ones who backed the Constitution as it was ratified – and the anti-Federalists – those who encouraged states holding more power. Having guns and other arms to block off the English, the Amendment, at start, was to give citizens the convenience to fight back against an overbearing Federal Government. Several in the Founding generation suspected that governments were devoted to using soldiers to oppress the people, and thought the Federal Government should solely be authorized to establish armies ( with full-time, paid soldiers ) when encountering foreign enemies. For all the other unequal reasons, they considered, it should turn to part-time militias, or typical civilians using their personal weapons. As militias had demonstrated poorly against the British, the Constitutional Convention permitted the new Federal Government the authority to form a standing army, even in peacetime. However, the anti-Federalists disagreed and argued that the federal army stripped states of their capability to uphold themselves against brutality. They were scared that Congress might mistreat its constitutional power of “ organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militias “ by unsuccessfully keeping militiamen armed with suitable artillery. So, as we see, the Second Amendment did not respond to the anti-Federalist’s worry of that the Federal Government had too much jurisdiction, but it did provide the principle (held by both Federalists and their opponents) that the government did not have the authorization to disarm citizens.
Since its ratification, the wording in the Second Amendment has initiated considerable debate, for many many years, about the Amendments interpretation. The clarification of that line splits into two arguments, for and against. People who support more gun control laws interpret the Amendment as that it was proposed for militias; that gun violence would be decreased; that gun restraints have always remained; and that a greater part of Americans, along with gun owners, back new gun restrictions. Those of opposite say that the Second Amendment secures an individual’s rights to occupy guns; that guns are necessary for self-defense from menace ranging from criminals to foreign intruders; and gun holding prevents crime rather than causing more. Both interpretations have helped aid the country’s continuous gun control debate.
Some might argue for the prosperity of our nation, gun control is a crucial necessity. There are millions of people in this country supporting the “anti-gun control cause” with the most basic excuse of “self-defense”. I truly do not trust that everyone who owns a gun will handle it for the good interest of self defense. Some people want power. The ownership of a firearm is a clear sign of wanting that power. So many MORE INNOCENT lives could be taken for unnecessary or petty reasons. Violence is never the right path to choose, and things should be settled in a healthier way. In my opinion, those who do not approve of gun control display they aren’t thinking of others safety, just violence. As I have stated before this topic is extremely contentious, and has been discussed from the beginning. When a human can easily obtain a gun, the quicker a felon attains full dominance over another. Honestly, unless mentally ill, that one person has total command of their thoughts and behavior no matter the situation. They know what they are doing. ANy type of firearm can be in anyone’s hands, without a law stating elseways. Now at this part, many would think or comment something like, “ Anyone can’t just flat out purchase a gun.” Obviously. Of course there are standard background checks, but is that enough? No, I firmly believe that a medical or universal background check should be included. Doing federal background checks can lower gun deaths by a projected 59.9%, ammunition purchases can reduce it more by another 80.7%. I also think certain tests should be performed to see if one is stable and capable of owning a firearm. If there is no outer limit to who can carry a gun in hand, then that puts everyone and anyone in danger. Once it is legal for anyone to have a gun, ZILCH can be done about it. Having more laws would also reduce gun deaths. Between 1999 and 2013 the amount of deaths was 464,033. The year 2013 was five years ago..now with today’s society that number has to be much higher by now. There are so many different reasons for me choosing to be Pro gun control but i will now talk about my final reason. For many of us guns are scary, so what if a serious conflict came around? The presence of a gun makes that conflict more likely to become violent, therefore armed civilians are unlikely to stop crimes and are MORE likely to make poor decisions in dangerous situations, including mass shootings and overall just more deadly.
On the other half, many argue that the Amendment gives every citizen the right to personally own a gun, not just militias. They say that it is an individual right and this law is vital to preserve the our rights of freedom. A big factor of not wanting more gun control laws is that it gives the government wayyy too much power, making citizens fearful of government tyranny. Think about it, our Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment because they has to live and suffer under the tyranny of King George. They wanted their people to live freely, not enslaved and not to endure his tyrannical ways ever again. Another big element, universal background checks and micro-stamping are a huge invasion of privacy. It will give the government to freely have a look into your personal life including name, address, criminal records, mental health history and much more. People need their privacy and definitely do not want to feel like they are being observed. More laws will not stop criminals. This will only make convicts want it more and more and more. They will eventually find a way, and will most likely lead to illegal gun trafficking. More laws are unneeded because few people are actually murdered by firearms. According to to the CDC’s “Leading Causes of Death Reports,” between 1999 and 2013 Americans were 21.5 times more to die of health complications. Firearm deaths are only the 12th leading and accountable for 1.3% deaths, because either way guns can be accessible. No protection. Additional laws equals no insurance of safety for civilians.Part of the goals of the Second Amendment is to keep all able bodied men, who own a firearm, so if needed they could defend, safeguard domestic calmness and to keep the peace of the United States. Lastly, attempts of gun control confirmed that is incompetent. It does not lessen firearm death rates. Overall, the causes for gun control are the effects of gun control.
I myself am torn. Honestly, I have opinions coming from both ends of this argument. Many just want our country to feel and be safe, which having or not having a gun can do. People go back and forth and back forth over this argument and I don’t think it will be solved or one sided any time soon. So, I have a question for both sides. What is the purpose of gun control? Attempting to control something that is, if you think about it, truly not understood can be very treacherous, especially in the world we live in today. We fear what we do not comprehend. The pivotal element is to target all violence, PEOPLE.
