The Second amendment of the constitution states, “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.” Gun control has been a hot topic over the past couple of decades. There are always people trying to justify that strict gun control or abolishment is necessary, even though our fore fathers mentioned in the Constitution that every citizen has a right to bear arms.
As stated in the article, “The study noted the number of criminals who obtained guns from retail outlets was dwarfed by the number of those who picked up their arms through means other than legal purchases.” I believe that politicians are focusing on gun control in the wrong way. Criminals that want guns will get them any way possible. Law-abiding citizens should be able to purchase any firearms they want as long as a criminal and mental background check is done. The comprehensive study found that only a small percentage of people used the weapons in a illegal manner, but this was usually due to the guns owner neglecting the safe-keeping of the firearm.
Our newly elected president wants to ban handguns all together, and most recently certain rifles. What good would this do, but keep citizens defenseless against the real criminals that most likely got a gun the illegal way. Would this go against our 2nd amendment?
Even though I am completely unknowledgeable about this topic, I am intrigued after reading the article and posting. I find that Mr. Obama's idea of banning handguns all together severely goes against our second amendment. Instead of banning handguns entirely, maybe those individuals in good standing with the law could own a licensed, registered handgun for their protection. I believe that there are certain people who should be able to legally own a gun if they wanted for the protection of themself and their family. Also, there are certain people who should not be able to own a gun because of things such as a criminal background, and because of this there should be strict rules when regulating gun control.
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a great point you make in your post. I am completely in support of the second ammendment, and I feel like all of us law-abiding citizens should have a right to legally own firearms. I enjoy hunting, and I feel that as long as I am doing it legally with a licensed permit then their should be nothing wrong with it. If a person wants to commit a crime with a weapon, then he is going to commit that crime whether we have the right to bear arms or not. I am all for making stricter gun laws, but I just hope that we can keep the 2nd ammendment for a long time to come.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it doesn't negate your point, Ignas, there's an important factual problem here--nobody intends to ban handguns:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/barack_obama_gun_control.htm
Moreover, your post is actually far more interesting than a mere debate about a politician's position. It seems that the question raised is, in fact, does gun control work? The studies would indicate that it doesn't, and that's a rich source of debate. While not proposing to ban handguns or rifles, Obama IS a proponent of gun control, albeit less extreme, such as the Brady Law. So this study would suggest that even those measures are futile, though whether they violate the 2nd amendment, I'm not so sure. The question--in the context of the article you posted--seems to be, rather, do they do any good? Given this adjustment, is the debate still worthwhile? Absolutely.
This is merely an issue of framing your question precisely and accurately. Other than that, it's a strong post.
I think that banning handguns and certain rifles will not solve the problem of gun control, and it will be refuting what the original constitution says about bearing arms. The only thing that banning firearms will do is exploit how easily criminals obtain illegal firearms from various sources. As said in the post, most of the gun related deaths are not coming from legally bought firearms but rather those bought from an illegal source. I think to solve the problem, the president and America need to focus on the source rather than the product. Less guns will find their way into the hands of criminals if illegal suppliers are shut down. It will be harder for criminals to walk into a gun shop and legally purchase a gun if they have an unstable background
ReplyDeleteI don not see the point in banning specific types of guns. I think that the focus should be more on illegal guns instead of trying to control the citizens that have obtained their fire arms legally. I agree with this post and most of the comments. I think it definately violates our right to bare arms. I think if a criminal wants a gun to commit a crime, he or she will get one. Now , I do think that it should be required that all guns at least have safetys on them. I also think it should be a law that all owners of fire arms should at least own a gun safe.
ReplyDeleteI think that gun-control laws, apparently not effective, are still necessary. These laws are protecting the teenagers and young adults that still want to go out and buy guns. I think that even thought studies show that the laws are ineffective they are still helping. I think that some of the problems are coming from the inside, gun store owners might not be checking ids, people maybe using fake ids, and so on. Is the government doing their job in checking the actions of owners?
ReplyDeleteAnd as for the president trying to outlaw gun control, I think he is crazy, sorry to be blunt. But people will always have guns and firearms, for example, when the United States tried to create prohibition, people were still drinking. I feel that if firearms are outlawed then more crimes will begin to start around the country.