Amendment II: 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.
Although the intentions for most gun control advocates are good, I believe they do more harm than good, because in a lot of cases, they end up violating the second amendment when they regulate the sale and use of rifles and handguns. The issue of gun control is one of the most controversial issues in America. You have one side that wants to ban guns from everyone, while the other side would like to just stick with the laws that are currently on the books, of if need be, enact new, sensible laws.
Protecting our nation’s second amendment, which preserves the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is vital. Guns have often played an important role in America. From the days of the Revolutionary War, when male citizens were required to own firearms for fighting against the British forces, to the present day, when our nation’s last line of defense may be well regulated militias. The National Guard, which was established in 1903, is not the militia referred to in the Second Amendment. For more than 400 years, the term “well regulated militia,” in the second amendment, has meant the people, with privately owned weapons, led by officers chosen by themselves. Tench Coxe said that the militias “are in fact the effective part of the people at large.” Richard Henry Lee said that the militias “are in fact the people themselves.” George Mason said that the militias consist “of the whole people.” As Tom Head writes at About.com, “The Constitution is a document, not a piece of software. Regardless of why the Second Amendment justifies its own existence, the fact remains that it still exists as part of the Constitution. The American people have the means, through the legislative process, to overturn the Second Amendment if it is no longer considered worthwhile. If it's obsolete, why hasn't this happened?” More likely than not, the American people will not be using their power to overturn the second amendment, considering the majority of them believe that it does, in fact, protect the right to bear arms. Gallup/NCC performed a poll in 2003 which found that 68% of those polled, believed that the second amendment protects the right to bear arms. Just like all of the other amendments to our Constitution, the second amendment was created for a reason; therefore, its existence is justified and it shouldn’t be tampered with.
For the most part, both gun control advocates and those with a completely different opinion on this issue, gun enthusiasts, agree that there are people who shouldn’t be allowed to be in contact with a gun. According to both sides, criminals, especially those with an irresponsible past involving guns, shouldn’t be allowed to own guns. Where the disagreement comes is on the part of how we are to take care of the problem of keeping the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. Gun control advocates, overall, believe we should impose strict bans on everything gun related, from the ammunition to the gun itself. Not only does this violate the second amendment, but it also won’t solve the original problem, and it will instead create even more problems. With or without a ban, criminals are going to find a way to get the gun of their choice, with a common way of going through the black market. If we ban all guns, from all citizens, while not even acknowledging the fact that a criminal can still get a gun from the black market, that’s going to take guns out of the hands of the law abiding citizens, and keep them in the hands of the criminals. On the other hand, gun enthusiasts tend to believe that the laws which are currently on the books, are sufficient enough, and that we don’t need anymore. Many are also willing to support sensible laws, which do as they are suppose to, and also leave the second amendment intact.
In 1994, the United States Congress passed a gun ban called the Federal 1994 Crime Bill, which, according to the supporters of the ban, targeted assault weapons, and high round magazines. According to the definition of the bill, an assault weapon is a semi-automatic rifle with two or more of the following: a folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher. It said nothing about guns being automatic, or their strength. As a matter a fact, a lot of the guns targeted by this ban weren’t even as powerful as many rifles one can go hunting with. For example, an AR-15, which is a semi-automatic version of the military's rifle (M-16), fires a .223 caliber round. Rifles of this caliber are often forbidden from being used to hunt deer because this small caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (And allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful .24 to .30 caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles. On September 13, 2004, the ban expired, and was not reinstated by the United States Congress.
Contrary to the beliefs of many, there are many sensible and preventative laws in place in the present times, which work very well. This includes everything from background checks to automatic guns that are heavily regulated and significantly more expensive than their semi-automatic counterparts. More specifically, regarding automatic guns, It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry. In addition, there is also a law called Project Exile, which was originally created in Richmond, Virginia, but has since spread to other cities, including Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Rochester, New York, with even more cities considering it. Not only is this law supported by the NRA, but it’s also supported by the Brady Campaign. Since its enactment, the crime rate in Richmond plummeted 55% in one year, and 65% overall. In short, it mandates a five year prison sentence, without the possibility of probation or parole, for felons caught in possession of a gun, and a fifteen year prison sentence, without the possibility of probation or parole, for a felon caught with a gun the commission of a crime.
Gun control advocates like to show statistics involving gun related homicide rates in America, in comparison to those in other countries such as Canada, Britain, France, etc. While they are lower in the other countries, one thing that isn’t taken into account, is the fact that America has a significantly larger population than all of the countries included in the statistics. Not only that, but the statistics explicitly decline to link falling gun mortality with tougher gun-control laws brought in during the same period.
There are a lot of different reasons why people own guns. These include, but are not limited to, just like football, soccer, baseball, etc, people can own guns for sport. Because of the dangerous world we all live in, one day any of us may need them to protect ourselves against a potential threat, or like some people believe, maybe even our own government, god forbid if we ever get to that point. Also, many gun owners collect various guns, which, in their mind, are very valuable pieces of history.
In conclusion, no matter which side you are on, regarding this issue, you’ll probably agree that the idea of trying to cut down on crime, while enforcing the law, is one that should not be dismissed. Unfortunately, like history has proven, bans are not the right course of action. Not only do they take away one of our rights as Americans, but they also don’t work as well as the supporters suggest, and they are, in many cases, written by people who really don’t know too much about guns. Instead of looking to bans, there are plenty of existing laws, already on the books, that should be enforced.