This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Uncategorized

Supporting the Gun Control Provision of the Constitution Amendment

This essay is written by:

Louis PHD Verified writer

Finished papers: 5822

4.75

Proficient in:

Psychology, English, Economics, Sociology, Management, and Nursing

You can get writing help to write an essay on these topics
100% plagiarism-free

Hire This Writer

Supporting the Gun Control Provision of the Constitution Amendment

There has been an increase in debates on whether or not everyone should be allowed to own a gun. Besides, most Americans are also discussing whether or not gun regulations and laws should be made tighter.  Many have associated the debates with politics claiming that all these are political issues. However, the issue of gun control has brought severe effects to the society. As expected, the problem has brought about different opinions. One of the contentious issues is whether gun ownership is a right or not. Over the last five years, in the United States, especially, there have been increased cases of mass shootings in public places such as schools, restaurants, and even offices. Despite different states having different laws and regulations regarding the ownership of firearms, there should be clear laws on the process on how to handle them.

First, I wanted to know why many Americans rapidly own guns. I turned to my first chosen article titled “Why own a gun? Protection is now top reason” by Dimock. I chose to start with this article because I felt there was a need first to understand the basics of gun control and why many people own guns. In addition, the article is educative and fun to read. Hence, in an attempt to find out why many Americans own guns, whether legally or illegally, the author of the article analyses a national survey. There are two surveys to compare from. The first one, a 1999 national survey showed that close to 49% of people who owned guns stated their main reason for owning a gun is for hunting while 26% said the gun was for protection (Dimock). In a 2013 survey of the same matter, close to half of gun owners claimed their main reason was for protection, while others said it was for target shooting. Come to think of it. If you are a successful businessman and handling a lot of cash, you are likely a target by thieves and even the community.  The sense of insecurity leads many people into buying guns as they try to protect themselves and their families.

The article above led me into thinking that maybe gun ownership in the United States was a culture. This led me to my second article. The article titled “America as a Gun Culture” by Richard Hofstadter suggests that America is the only developed Western nation that private gun ownership is not a crime. In 2018 alone, it was reported that an approximate 46% of American households possessed a gun. Most Americans overlook the dangers and risks involved in owning guns. They instead choose to insist on having guns as they believe they are protecting themselves. All these issues and habits can be traced back to the gun policies in the United States.

What most Americans don’t know or choose to ignore is the fact that private ownership of guns or better still the gun culture is a ticking time bomb. Needless to say, there have been increased incidences of mass shootings and suicides, which can all be traced to ownership of guns. I know that there are policies put in place to ensure that gun ownership is regulated, but are they doing enough? In the same article, the author suggests that it is weird how anyone can get to own a firearm. Basically, gun control involves the regulation of the manufacturing, sale, and distribution of firearms. There are also health guidelines that should be met before an individual can be permitted to buy a gun.

The 1968 Gun Control Act is an excellent option to help us analyze the policies and guidelines set to regulate the purchase and use of guns. For more than 50 years now, Americans have misinterpreted the act choosing to understand it their way. First, the minimum age that one is permitted to own a gun is 18 years. In my opinion, however, I feel that the age limit should be 21 years as 18 years is too young and naive. All the same, not all firearms are accessible at the age of 18. Some require an age limit of 21 years. The act also gives guidelines on who should not be allowed to own or access a gun. These include people with mental problems and people who have had a history of felony. Not everybody gets to sell guns, and if you decide to, the local authorities must be informed and be a registered member of the Federal Firearms License (FFL). A background check is also conducted to ensure the potential owner is legally viable. Once a person has successfully owned a firearm, the person will still need a permit to carry the gun around. It is evident that the guidelines and policies set by the amendment are good and aim to regulate ownership of guns. But is the government doing enough? When the act was rolled out, did the government bother to investigate what the common American understood from it? My main focus of the amendment is the statement that 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.” Being a common American of general understanding, it is evident that no one should be detained over claims of being in possession of a gun (law school). In my opinion, the amendment has brought about more harm than good.

There is a detected ambiguity in how the constitution states that have initiated an erotic debate, which also cuts across gun possession rights. As well, there is an increasing tension between rights and liberty protection of the people and the general safety of the community. These two aspects need a meeting point or balance to say. If one is prioritized, another will end in skirmishes and wildness. But if the constitution of theU.S.. can keep an eye on both of them, it might prevent the numerous cases that get presented to the confusion of the constitution. The leadership would much reflect a terrible despise amidst strive to keep all factors maintained. For instance, if gun control would be taken away to the safe and good people, they get exposed to the once-upon-a-time violence that existed before advancement into decency.

A recent move was on debating about the limits of bearing arms, provided for in the Second Amendment of the Rights Bill. More so important, there is also a drive towards running a background check before issuing a firearm on whether the person is rightly in his or her mind to bear a gun. On the other side, the amendment also allocated for so-called red flag laws that indicate who should never own an arm irrespective of what condition, or who should permanently be prohibited from possessing a gun.

My opinion instigates for a ruling party passing reasonable laws regarding to gun-owning that would ensure that they are accessible to malicious actors who would commit a crime without any doubt, at any time and any place. However, they should not outright or keep off completely law-respective citizens from possessing a gun, especially because crime is never knocking before it is committed. So, a reasonable and realistic gun law should; probably allow only above 21 years-law-abiding citizen to own a gun, make it very compulsory for all applying for gun possession to undergo an evaluation of their mental uprightness, run background checks on gun-possessing applicants if there has been any crime committed, and make the waiting period for gun purchasing longer. The nation can only be sufficiently secured if a better evaluation of the person to own a gun is done adequately. Giving into consideration that preventive measures are better than corrective measures, it is basically right to outdo crime through regulatory measures securing one from owning a firearm and a one that is seeking to stand for human rights to defending himself against an act of crime. Definitely, I am rather a pro-second Amendment than a con, maintaining that people should exercise their rights to possess guns but not on a free-for-all probability. These people require measures that take them through background checks for a general assurance that guns are kept off hands of convicted criminals.

An unfortunate circumstance, however, is the case where crimes that are gun-related getting caused by culprits who illegally obtain guns. The case is that they have either stolen in or purchased them from the black market. Notably, however, the number of measures of gun control we may have put in place, a black market will never lack – and being the next thing to worry about and keep monitored by the constitution. So, this means that gun ownership rights and legality should not entirely be kicked off the door, it may turn to be a security for the citizens at desperate times when the government may not be able to intervene immediately for their security. Why? The stricter the gun control regulations, the higher the rate of burglary schemes, and so pulling off an Amendment of full prohibitions may mean pulling a stunt to the greatest unimaginable crime events.

It is not of a greater concern if assault rifles never existed in those times the constitution was prepared. TheConstitution’ss laws of search and seizure apply intensively to cell phones, which at the moment, were not around either. Those Constitutional provisions were to apply in today’s technology. This is why I may lean against stricter gun control measures that ban certain types of guns, and especially for law-abiding citizens who are subjected through a full criminal background check. Irrespective of the kind of a gun one may have, for whatever reason, it is utterly in order to maintain order and self-security. If we examine the battle of my pro-gun control status, I am arguing on two set-ups that equally present danger. First, there is an innocent person who is a law-abiding citizen and has full rights to exercise his or her liberty and so may need a gun for his well-being and security. Secondly, there is a burglar whose commitment is to ensure that he or she obtains property violently, and who in the circumstance, can gauge into committing murder and harm to the society’s population. The two befit measures to tame them, but because of the black market, there is an entirely slight likelihood that full safety effects might be exercised. This is the reason why firearms are vital but on great control that needs personal evaluations.

The challenge, however that keeps hindering us from realizing the best exercise of gun control is the fact that the government has very little commitment of inquiring from the citizens seeking to own a gun the ‘reason’ to why they want to possess the type of the gun. It should something defined and steered by the constitution regarding the use, if for a doorstop protection or hunting, among other reasons. It should as well allocate the follow up of the reason for owning a gun, which is among the great crimes committed. A person will rightly obtain a license to own a gun for a certain reason, and the government ends up with him at owning until there is a nasty event presenting crime that has occurred. In such a situation, the government accelerates justice for a thing they could have prevented if regulation had catered for follow-ups on how the gun gets used.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a broader review of relationships binding America with guns and violence has gone the extra mile to be tolerated anymore. In theU.S.S, gun ownership is meant to cater for a defense against gun-crimes and other assaults, which should lend the emergency to vigilante action. However, this likely undermines the authority of the U.S. While, on the contrary, a sufficiently-funded mental health system cannot prevent all the mass shootings, but gun-owning does aid those who may need it at the best time before violence-related crime occurs. So, gun-control has specific better provisions that are a tool of assessment on who, and why the person is granted the gun. The reason should be enough to engage the right department for systematic measures, and controlling devastating mass shootings from occurring, again and again, should be prioritized.

 

 

Works Cited

“Gun Control in the United States: A Comparative Survey of State Firearm Laws.” A project of the Open Society Institute’s Center on Crime, Communities & Culture and the Funders’ Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention, 2000.

Dimock, M., Doherty, C., & Christian, L. “Why own a gun? Protection is now top reason.” change (1999): 24.

Koper, C.S., & W. Webster. “America’s Experience with the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, 1994-2004: Key Findings and Implications”. Reducing Gun Violence in America: Informing Policy with Evidence and Analysis, 2013. pp: 157-171.

Lawschool, cornel. Second Amendment. 23 march 2017. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment.

Lott, John R. “More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws.” University of Chicago Press, (2013): 45.

Spitzer, Robert J. “Politics of gun control.” Routledge (2015): 32.

 

 

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers

 Get started in just 3 minutes
 Sit back relax and leave the writing to us
 Sources and citations are provided
 100% Plagiarism free
error: Content is protected !!
×
Hi, my name is Jenn 👋

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

Check Out the Form
Need Help?
Dont be shy to ask