Gun Control

Gun Control in the United States of America is a topic that has had some criticism and support by many citizens. The critical people of this topic believe that the guns do not kill people, it is the people that kill people. The supporters of this topic believe that guns lead to violence and a feeling of power over others. They also believe that if guns were eliminated from the public, then violence and death would decrease heavily in this country. These two opposing views leave the federal government open to a decision on whether or not to abolish one of our Constitutional rights, or to keep allowing people the right to own a gun.

There have been many Supreme Court cases that have been gun-related. These cases have led to what is now the policy of the United States on owning a gun. For example, in the Supreme Court Case Printz v. United States, the question was that if a gun dealership doing background check on whoever wanted to buy a gun was constitutional or not. This background check would include the Brady Form, which contained the name, address, date of birth, and a sworn statement that the person was not a convicted felon or had a mental illness. The dealer must also check the identity of the buyer by some form of identification. Once the CLEO is checked, the dealer has a five-day period to check on the background to see if it would violate the law to sell to this potential buyer. A sheriff Jay Printz took this to the Supreme Court saying that this was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled that the CLEOs were unconstitutional, but the rest of the Brady Act was not found to be unconstitutional. In the Supreme Court case United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of a lower courts dismissal of two men who violated the National Firearm Act. Jack Miller and Frank Layton were arrested for carrying a 12-gauge shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas. In the Western Arkansas District Court, the lawyers for the men claimed that the National Firearm Act violated the Second Amendment right of bearing arms. The lower court agreed with the lawyers and the two men were dismissed of charges. The Supreme Court argued the decision over after the men were freed. The men were not retried during the argument, however. The Supreme Court found that the National Firearm Act did not violate the Second Amendment in any way. The Supreme Court case United States v. Lopez also showed a position on gun control.A 12th grade high school student was charged with state law of bringing a gun into his high school. Those charges were dropped the next day and he was charged under federal law for violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Lopez moved to have charges dropped because Congress overstepped their bounds by making this law. The court found him guilty dismissing his move. He appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals with the same notion that Congress did not have the right to make the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The circuit court agreed with him and reversed the decision of the district court. The Supreme Court was questioning whether or not Congress could pass this act. They ruled that Congress exceeded their boundary by passing this act. The Supreme Court has made many decisions on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, which leaves the right to bear arms where it is in the present day.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

The United States was founded with ten essential rights, known as the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment 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. There have been many smaller court cases involving the interpretation of this amendment, but the Supreme Court has not made a firm decision on the interpretation. There are mainly three ways this amendment has been interpreted: some believe it gives individuals the personal right to bear arms, others believe that bearing arms is subordinate to ensuring public safety, and others tend to believe that it allows people to keep a militia that is not a federally-controlled army. Throughout the nations history, the Supreme Court has made numerous decisions based on this amendment. The Supreme Court basically believes that an individual has the right to own a gun if it ahs to do with a formed militia. If the gun is for no militia use, there is no reason to carry it on a person. The Second Amendment is one of the most controversial amendments from the Constitution, but there still has not been a final decision on its meaning. The amendment itself is the only amendment that contains a preamble to it, which causes more confusion.

Congress has made many laws that keep the ownership of guns under control. They have gotten this power from the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This gives them power to regulate commerce between states and foreign countries. The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934. It banned the public from owning machine guns or sawed off shotguns. There was also taxes put on manufacturing and distribution.Also, a registration was required with the purchase of a gun. In 1938, the Federal Firearms Act was passed. This act did many things to control the ownership of guns. It regulated transportation of guns across state lines, outlawed transportation of stolen guns, and outlawed sending guns to fugitives or convicted felons. In 1968, the passing of the Gun Control Act amended the National Firearms Act and repealed the Federal Firearms Act. The Gun Control Act made licensing a need, changed the buying requirements, and changed the policy of the importation of guns from other countries. This act was replaced by the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986. This act added some new restrictions and made older ones different. However, it did decrease on the requirements of the 1968 act. This act also banned machine guns from being sold to the public. In 1988, the Undetectable Firearms Act was passed. This required the look-alike toy guns have a bright orange piece on the barrel of the gun. This act was passed as a result to 19 different police shootings of children with look-alike toy guns. In 1990, Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zone Act. This outlawed the possession by anyone of guns on school zones. However, this law was repealed because it was found that Congress could not make a law like this. In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was passed. This proscribed a five-day waiting period for purchasing a gun. It also created a computerized background check. The law enforcement officials had to do a background check on whoever was going to buy a gun. However, this part of the act was repealed in the Supreme Court case Printz v. United States in 1997.

To this present day, the gun control issue still stands as a very heated and controversial topic. In order to purchase a gun, you must fill out a Brady Form, which tells the name, address, date of birth, and a declaration of a person that he/she is not a convicted felon or suffers a mental illness. There is a five-day waiting period so the dealer can do a background check on the person. If the person passes these, then the gun must be registered with the police department of that area. In the future, there are many possibilities of what can happen. One concept that could occur is that personal gun ownership is abolished. For an extent of time after this would be passed, there would be a few guns circulating within the criminals, but eventually they would be gone. Crime would not decrease. The only factor that would decrease would be the number of deaths caused by guns. Vancouver, Canada and Seattle, Washington have a somewhat similar crime rate. However, the number of gun-related deaths is much higher in Seattle because of the availability of guns. Another concept that could occur is that the gun laws could stay as they are. This is a somewhat stable way of keeping control over guns. The guns must be registered, and guns will not be sold to anyone who is not stable enough to handle a gun. The pro side of the riddance of the personal ownership of guns would be that there would not be near as many deaths. The crime rate would not fluctuate much, but the number of deaths would drop. The con side is that there would be no personal protection for an individual.

Gun control has been a topic of controversy since the early years of the United States of America. There are those who believe it is wrong to own a gun for personal use, and those who believe that it is a right that should be left granted to the citizens of the United States. The Supreme Court has not made a definite interpretation of this amendment, but it relies on an assumption that it tells a gun is allowed for a person for a militia not funded by the federal government. Until the Supreme Court makes a final and definite interpretation of the Second Amendment, there will be an ongoing heated controversy over the necessity of guns in the American public.

Gun Control

Gun Control Gun control isn’t about guns its about control. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. This is the premise that a nationally known organization, the NRA stands behind. They believe that our forefathers included the second amendment for a purpose.

That purpose is just as important today as it was in the days of. The purpose is to allow the individual to defend his freedom. There are a number of reasons why this freedom needs to be protected. The number one and most important is to keep the individuality of the American people from becoming controlled by the Government. Governmental Issues Only sixty years ago Hitler took away the rights of Jews in Germany to bear arms. At that time it look like it was being done for the betterment of society.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

History has told us what followed. Taking away peoples abilities to defend themselves is the easiest way to subjugate, enslave or eradicate them. Many times an over zealous government takes actions that cannot be justified. A good example of this is the Ruby Ridge Incident, where a mans wife and son were killed over a minor firearm offense. Some States have enacted their own laws.

Florida has aloud its citizens to carry a concealed weapon. Since this law was enacted the murder rate has dropped by 29%. Over the same period of time the nationwide murder rate increased by 11%. This clearly shows that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens can prevent crime. In contrast many of our countries major cities have banned all guns.

In 1976 guns were banned in Washington DC. Since then the murder rate has risen 200%. According to a CBS poll, 64% of Americans rightfully understand and don’t believe gun control laws reduce crime anyway. History has proven that every nation, which has disarmed its citizenry, has ended up with a dictator, a police state, and with countless horrible atrocities. It is true that we either learn from history or history will repeat itself.

Personal Protection Not only is it our right to own guns for protection against a overbearing government, but also against those who intend to infringe on the peoples security. The criminals don’t care about gun control laws for themselves. Actually, they are hoping for more laws will pass for gun control. It makes breaking the law safer and easier for them. A common belief is that people don’t need guns because we have the police to protect us.

In most cases the police ca not protect you. First of all if you were involved in a crime you would not have time to call the police. Secondly even if you could call the police they probably would not arrive in time. Lastly if the police arrive in time, they are not aloud to use their weapons unless they catch the criminal in the act. If the government were to ban guns today, the people who would turn in their guns would be the law abiding citizens.

The criminals would still have their guns. There are many people who argue that guns in the home create accidents and children are killed. The truth is there are four times as many children that are killed in accidents with bikes than with guns. Swimming pool accidents claim ten times more toddlers. The anti-gun activists use any gun-related tragedy to promote the anti-gun agenda.

The reason that guns seem so bad is that when anything bad happens you see it on TV. You will never see the news media report an incident where a gun helped save a person or repel a violent attack. Shooting Sports Guns have been involved in our countries heritage since before its conception. In some families hunting and gun collecting is a tradition that has been handed down for generations. While we do not need guns to put dinner on our table, the sport of hunting has been a bonding experience for many families.

This is a healthy American tradition that should not be broken. The hunting and shooting sports industry is wide spread. There are millions of jobs and dollars that are connected with the shooting sports. While we may just think of the gun manufacturer as being affected there are however many industries that would be affected adversely if guns were eliminated. If we consider that the average hunter buys clothing ammunition, vehicles, and other necessary supplies.

If he travels he buys airline tickets and gasoline. If he goes out of state he may use the services of a guide, whose livelihood depends on shooting sports. As you can see if guns were eliminated from our society we would be at a serious loss. Our freedoms would be in jeopardy, our individual safety would be questionable and a significant industry in our country would be at a deficit. The quote that Guns don’t kill people, people kill people is even more pertinent today. It is time that each individual takes responsibilities for his actions and not blame an inanament object for a wrongdoing.

Thank You.

Gun Control

Americans are faced with an ever-growing problem of violence. Our streets have become a battleground where the elderly are beaten for their social security checks, where terrified women are viciously attacked and raped, where teen age gangsters shoot it out for a patch of turf to sell their drugs, and where innocent children are caught daily in the crossfire of drive by shootings. We cannot ignore the damage that these criminals are doing to our society, and we must take actions to stop these horrors. However, the effort by some misguided individuals to eliminate the legal ownership of firearms does not address the real problem at hand, and simply disarms the innocent law abiding citizens who are in need of a form of self-defense.

The second amendment to the Constitution of the United States makes firearm ownership legal in this country. There were good reasons for this freedom. Firearms have played a big role in the freedom that exists in the United States today. In colonial times, the average American freed themselves from the British. These average American fighters were known as Minutemen. These Minutemen, named because they would pick up their guns and go to the defense of their country on a minutes notice, played a major part in winning the American Revolution. It was for that reason that the founding fathers of this country made the right to keep and bear arms a constitutional right.
It wasnt until after the Civil War that the first gun control activists came into play. These were the southern leaders that were afraid that the newly freed black slaves would use their new political rights against them. To avoid this they passed new laws making it illegal for black people to own firearms in many states in the South. It was over a century until the civil rights activists of the 1960s were able to give the constitutional freedoms that the black people of this country were supposed to be given in the mid 1800s.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Todays gun control activists are different than those of the past. They say that gun violence in this country has gotten to a point where something must be done to stop it. They would like to see criminals disarmed, and they want the violence to stop. However, they are going about it in the wrong way. While claiming that they want to take guns out of the hands of criminals, they work to pass laws that would take the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens instead. For this reason the, efforts for gun control do not address the real problems of crime.

The simple definition of a criminal is someone who does not obey the law. The simple definition of a law-abiding citizen is someone who does obey the law. Therefore, if we pass laws restricting ownership of firearms, which group of people does it affect? The simple answer is that gun control laws affect law-abiding citizens only. By their very nature, criminals will continue to violate these new laws, they will continue to carry their firearms, and they will find their efforts at crime easier when they know that their victims will be unarmed. Innocent people are turned into victims when new laws make it impossible for them to fight back. An unarmed person stands little chance against an armed one. There have been laws passed that force citizens to go through a registration process to purchase a firearm. It is the law-abiding citizens who are going through these processes of getting permits so they may legally carry a firearm. The people who go through this legal process do not want to break the law. The people who do intend to break the law will carry their guns whether or not the law allows them.

Criminals will always find ways to get guns. In this country we have made illegal the use, possession, sale, and transportation of many kinds of narcotics, but it is still easy for anyone to purchase their drug of choice from street corner dealers. Firearms and ammunition would be just as easy to obtain from these black market vendors. Today, criminals often carry illegal weapons, including sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and even homemade guns, clearly showing disregard for the current laws that make these items illegal.

The gun control advocates have argued their case by demonizing the gun itself, rather than addressing the people who commit violent crimes. They attempt to claim that possession of a gun turns average citizens into bloodthirsty lunatics. If legal possession of a firearm caused this sort of attitude, then why are crime rates highest in areas such as Washington D.C., and New York City which have strict gun control laws? And why are crime rates dropping in states such as Florida where private ownership of firearms is encouraged? Simply stated, legal ownership of a gun does not cause crime.

The most recent efforts of gun control advocates have been to claim that certain types of guns and ammunition are evil. They assign emotional catch phrases such as assault weapons and cop killer bullets to broad categories of firearms and ammunition in the hopes that people will believe that some guns have an evil nature. Most people who are unfamiliar with firearms do not fully understand what these phrases mean, and they accept the terms being used without question. What people do not often understand is that the term assault weapon has been defined to include all semi-automatic rifles, and cop killer has been defined to include any bullet that can penetrate body armor. It comes as a surprise to most people that a large number of simple hunting rifles can do both. Does ownership of one of these weapons cause people to become mass murderers? It does not, and we must not fall into the trap of blaming the gun for the hand that holds it.

The act of making it illegal to own firearms does little to prevent criminals from getting guns. These laws only restrict people who respect the law itself, the people who would only use firearms for legal purposes anyway. And when we give people the right to defend themselves, we find that criminals start looking for other victims out of fear that they will become the victims themselves. We must work to reduce crime in America, but we should look at the problem realistically, and develop plans that would be effective. It is obvious that the gun control laws are neither realistic, nor effective in reducing crime. Therefore, we must direct our efforts toward controlling crime, not controlling legal ownership of firearms.

Words
/ Pages : 1,144 / 24

x

Hi!
I'm Adrienne!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out