For over one hundred years, America just like other nations globally continues to battle with the gun control issue despite the multiple heated debates on firearm regulations. A good example of the debates is the question of whether there should be more or less government regulation on access to guns in America. The National Rifle Association (NRA)has termed government officials in charge of regulating guns as "jack-booted government thugs," while over 750,000 women mostly mothers march in Washington for the demand for the increase in firearm regulation laws. However, studies debate that a firearm is only harmful when in wrong hands and maybe the more reason why the rules should be stricter but in cases where there is no harm posed by the guns, then the laws put in place for firearm regulation are adequate. In this case, the article aims at arguing the case of gun control because there are enough gun regulations in America.
The fact that there are enough gun regulations in America implies that there is no need for alteration. The second Amendment argues that all people have the right to own a firearm and that firearms do not kill people, but it is people who kill others. In this case, instead of altering these regulations, it is best to punish the criminals who use the guns in carrying out atrocities. When criminals face mandatory and maximum prison sentences, it is easier for the crimes to be controlled rather than majoring in gun control regulations (Fleegler et al., p.732). Furthermore, stronger or less gun control regulations will imply that citizens will have a difficult time in protecting their families and themselves given the fact that crimes put any one's life at risk. Therefore, in cases where the militia is not around, a person's life can be taken yet he, or she could have permission to use a firearm. For instance, the Pennsylvania minority report shows a stronger objection to the approach of "civic rights only" concerning the firearm rights. The report indicates that individual rights are not to be explained o any person regarding personal purposes (Cornell, 2008). It means that the reasons that push a person to own a firearm are private and need not be told. In this case, alteration of gun control rules will be against a person's right. Therefore, making gun control regulations stricter or less will harm the people in so many ways.
On the other hand, the argument on tightening or loosening the gun control regulations can be compelling in some cases since current laws have not reduced crime rates and thus the need for alteration. According to the Militia Clauses which shows that there is no wrong in the public's right to arms, these rights, however, have to be construed in the sense that the people should not use the arms in rendering military services. In this case, as much as the people have the right to own firearms. America's supreme power to alter the regulatory laws favor both the citizens and the militia given the fact that when the people are armed, the army will feel threatened to carry out their protective roles efficiently (Cornell, 2008). Furthermore, controlling the laws on firearms implies that the militia is regulated in the sense that once trained to arms; a militia can efficiently defend the State thus reducing the cases of wrong uses of firearms. The Virginians declare that citizens have right to own guns but not on the grounds of "common defense" since the presence of a well-regulated militia can take care of defense matters. It therefore evident that altering the regulations on gun control will placate a comprehensive understanding on both the individuals' rights concept and militia concept on the issues of defense.
America has the highest number of guns (over 270,000,000). The culture of owning guns stems from the revolutionary roots, Second Amendment, colonial history and frontier expansions. In this case, the regulation on gun control aims at reducing the rates of violence in the State. However, more gun restrictions imply that citizens who own guns for self-defense will not be safe in cases where they can't afford to have the firearms. From another perspective, making the regulations strict will deter crimes in the sense that guns will only be owned by those people who have legal rights. It is, however, argues that when the regulations are reduced, more crimes will increase since more people will have the freedom to use the guns hence cut the power of the militia. Therefore it is conclusive that the regulations we have are enough to control gun ownership and usage and there is no need for alteration.
Cornell, Saul. A well-regulated militia: the founding fathers and the origins of gun control in America. Oxford University Press, 2008.Fleegler, Eric W., et al. "Firearm legislation and firearm-related fatalities in the United States." JAMA internal medicine 173.9 (2013): 732-740.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the thesishelpers.org website, please click below to request its removal:
- Erin Andrews v. Marriot International, Inc - Law Essay Sample
- Business Research Paper: Uber's Embroilment in Legal Battles
- Sociology Essay Example: Gender Inequality and Isolation
- Should Rich People Feel Morally Obligated to Help the Poor? Essay Example
- Coursework Example: Company Law
- Law School Application Essays
- Sociology Essay Example: Women's Suffrage Movement