Pro Gun Control Vs the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment has played a major role in the rights of citizens of the United States, to possess a firearm. Lawful possession of firearms allows people to protect the nation, themselves, their families, to engage in hunting and other recreational activities, all due to the rights from the second amendment. The rights and liberty citizens are given by the second amendment provides them a way to have a firearm. The Second Amendment says “…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (U.S. Constitution). With foreign armies building up, civil unrest and the need to defend their families and state from inside and outside influences. Guns went from protecting the country to a necessity. Militias were formed apart from the British backed or loyalist armies.

The "right to keep and bear arms" could be beneficial and problematic at the same time. Many believe that the Second Amendment, provides security and self-protection. The usage of guns went from necessity to misusage, gun ownership leads to deaths, violent crimes, suicide and homicide outside or inside homes. People committing crime has nothing to do with gun control; in fact, gun control laws have made it easier for them to kill, injure or hurt helpless citizens who abide by laws of our state.

What is so different about the Second Amendment that prevents the regulation of guns? Nothing of significance is different with respect to regulation. The right to gun ownership is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and setting aside for now the controversy over whether that amendment concerns individual ownership or is for the purpose of maintaining “a well-regulated militia,” the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the individual right to firearms (District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008).

That right, as all other constitutional rights, should be subject to regulation that does not infringe the right. Since all guns are not the same, it is reasonable that regulations might be established to constrain or prohibit the types of guns that represent a real and imminent threat to civilian populations. No one in our society outside the military has need of a weapon that can fire large numbers of bullets at a high rate of speed, either for hunting or for protection. No one needs to carry around a long gun in an urban location. Only some people can justify carrying a concealed or open weapon on public streets for personal protection.

No one should be assumed to know how to safely use and store a firearm just because they can afford to purchase one. Gun rights are, and must be, regulated like any other constitutional right for the greater public good. “The wording of the Second Amendment implies the need for regulation. In fact, the opening phrase of the amendment refers to “a well-regulated militia,” which implies that gun rights must be regulated as one element in a militia. When will the opponents of plainly legitimate and necessary regulations of gun ownership and use for public wellbeing and safety stop throwing up specious arguments against any regulation of firearms?” (Cooper)

On the other hand, having more and more regulations placed in controlling guns as to minimize mass shooting is that, in the minds of gangs and criminals, the more and more there are regulations that are restricting guns, the more these efforts make the criminals and gangs be happy. This is because they understand that the more and more laws are enacted to limit guns in the population, the easier it becomes for having greater chances of citizens not defending themselves whenever they are attacked.

The citizens will not have the means of defending themselves from individuals who have intentions of harming them on a grand scale. For the record, states which have allowed more and more citizens to arm themselves with guns are seen as having low rates of crime and mass shooting than in states which have suppressed the right of self-arming of its citizens. With that said there are pros and cons to getting more regulations in obtaining fire-arms but the people have to decide will it improve society in doing so or harm it?

Cite this page