Difficult Buy a Gun, a U.S. Citizens

¶ … difficult buy a gun, a U.S. citizens amendment 8-10 pages length, double spaced, font 12 times roman. MLA standards 8-12 sources, 12-20 citations.

Why the U.S. should not ban gun control

There is presently much controversy regarding the U.S. And its position concerning gun control. With recent events such as the Newtown, Connecticut (a mass shooting involving 29 persons shot dead) dominating media devices, the public has become agitated concerning gun laws. The fact that these legislations provided an environment where guns can be used by a series of controversial individuals triggered alarm and influenced the masses to lobby with regard to reform. Even though gun control is especially important when considering conditions in the contemporary U.S., it is also significant for the authorities to acknowledge that guns are an active part of society and that people who meet a series of requirements associated with gun ownership need to have access to weapons.

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only contains twenty-seven words, but in spite of this it has managed to generate numerous controversies through the years. "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." These words are responsible for fueling a great deal of debates and for making people confused with regard to their rights and to how they need to protect them. Guns play an important role in U.S. history and from the time when colonists brought their muskets to war until today, many Americans felt securer as a result of having access to guns on a legal basis (Gerber 6).

The moment when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 marked the beginning of an era in which the government acknowledges that owning a gun is a liberty. The American Revolution enabled people to look at their role within the community from a different perspective. American citizens realized that the forces of Power were constantly obsessed with persecuting simple people and that they were responsible for protecting the realm of Liberty (Shalhope).

Individuals who were in charge had a tendency to express lesser interest in protecting and maintaining a republican society. As a consequence, it became obvious that the U.S. was only likely to remain a haven of Liberty as long as its people kept their virtue and their ability to protect themselves. The Second Amendment is, in its essence, an attempt by the people to highlight the free individual's rights, and, by this, to provide people with the "right to bear arms" (Shalhope).

Two main principles support people's interest in the "right to bear arms." Firstly, the masses fear the idea of standing armies, taking into account that the government can easily manipulate armies to attack the general public in situations when the latter puts across thinking that is in disagreement with values supported by influential bodies. Secondly, people are concerned about having a militia composed out of simple and honest citizens, as such as military force would certainly be devoted to defending the rights of the people rather than acting in accordance with orders provided by controversial individuals. The people basically fight for the people and it is thus essential for numerous individuals in the U.S. To express particular interest about having access to guns (Shalhope).

The revolutionary war provided individuals across the colonies with the feeling that it was essential for them to have the right to legally own guns. The Second Amendment was actually devised as a means to ensure that the government is unable to take away this right. It is thus very problematic to discuss this matter today, considering that the contemporary U.S. is divided between individuals who support the "right to bear arms" and people who emphasize that the right to own guns does not necessarily apply to individual citizens.

III. The District of Columbia v. Heller Case

The Second Amendment generated much controversy concerning people's right to own guns. While some believed that the amendment only referred to individuals needing to have access to owning guns as a means for them to be able to unite in a militia if it is required for them to do so, others felt that the amendment also relates to how an individual has the right to own a weapon with the purpose of self-defense.

If the Second Amendment were to solely refer to a collective right to bear arms, then individuals who want gun control to be stronger would be right in thinking that the legislation does not necessarily imply that all mentally-fit individuals should have the right to own guns. This serves to prove the divisiveness that this particular law can generate.

In situations when it is important for a militia to be available, particular states are reluctant to provide individuals with the right to own guns. The District of Columbia, for example, previously supported the idea that "it is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited" (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER 1) and "requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, "unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device" unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities." (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER 1)

The District of Columbia v. Heller Case made it possible for lawmen and for the masses to realize that the Second Amendment was not as clear as they previously believed it to be. Dick Heller is a special police officer in the District of Columbia and he has the right to carry a gun while on police duty. The fact that he lived in what he related to as a diverse environment enabled Heller to want to get actively involved in trying to provide people with the right to own guns. "People who work in downtown DC or live west of Rock Creek Park exist in a world mostly without guns. But residents of tough neighborhoods on the city's east side hear gunshots as often as the chirping of birds. All but a few gun murders last year took place east of Rock Creek Park." (Jaffe)

Taking into account the conditions that Heller lived in, it seems perfectly normal that he wanted to raise public awareness concerning the actual purpose of the Second Amendment. While the legislation influenced many to believe that there was nothing special about the right to own guns up until Heller's decision to rise against the government, the reality was that the Second Amendment had very little effect in certain areas. One of Heller's attorneys anecdotally emphasized that the Second Amendment was rather similar to the Loch Ness monster -- even with the fact some reported seeing it, a great deal of individuals and lawmen in particular tended to consider that it did not exist (Gould).

The District of Columbia v. Heller case certainly made it possible for people to understand that conditions were critical when considering the Second Amendment and the degree to which it provided people with the right to protect themselves. The fact that Heller won further contributed to making it possible for individuals in the D.C. In particular to be able to protect themselves, especially when considering that there are a series of dangerous neighborhoods in the area. Moreover, the case also influenced people in other states to acknowledge that the authorities were not very supportive when considering their right to own guns.

IV. The Right of the People

The right to own guns is much more important than someone might be inclined to believe and the fact that "the right of the people" phrase is only used in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights three times emphasizes the significance of this right. "All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not "collective" rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body." (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER 5)

Interpreting the Second Amendment as only being meant to protect the right of able-bodied men to hold guns with the purpose of getting actively involved in a militia when the time comes is certainly wrong. Many promote the belief that the right to bear arms only referred to individuals in the 18th century and that this particular right was intended to have them prepared for a situation involving the authorities attempting to persecute them. However, similar to other amendments, the Second Amendment refers to American individuals in general, regardless of the time when they were born or of whether or not they are going to be part of a community serving as a militia. In addition to having to protect the state in critical situations, an individual also needs to be able to protect him or herself and in some cases the only way to do so is to own a gun and use it.

V. The case against gun ownership

There are numerous individuals in the U.S. who feel that guns should only be available to people who are actually part of a law-enforcement community. Most of these people believe that the Second Amendment provides criminals with the ability to procure guns with little to no trouble. However, they fail to understand that people who are predisposed to crime are more likely to get their weapons from street dealers rather than from certified shops. These individuals focus on evading the law and they are obviously well aware that buying a gun would be likely to get the authorities to express interest in their activities.

a. The Newtown school shooting

Events involving guns used in schools fuel mass-media stories influencing people to believe that gun ownership laws are one of the principal reasons why innocent are killed. Neil Heslin is the father of a boy who was killed during the Newtown school shooting and he is currently among the individuals passionate about getting the government to impose harsher gun control laws. Heslin believes that people's tendency to invoke the Second Amendment whenever they are presented with the opportunity to discuss gun ownership is a sign of ignorance. "A handful of people at the packed legislative hearing then shouted about their Second Amendment rights when Heslin asked if anyone could provide a reason for a civilian to own an assault-style weapon." (DAILY MAIL REPORTER) Moreover, Heslin believed that by considering the Second Amendment before actually thinking about the matter at hand individuals practically fail to even think about the harm done as a result of gun ownership laws. From his perspective, people like him are not trying to claim that the Constitution is wrong, as they are actually attempting to emphasize that much has changed ever since the Second Amendment was ratified and that the world as a whole would be a better place if only particular individuals would have access to owning guns.

While people are immediately inclined to express strong emotions when they come across a case such as the Newtown school shooting, most are probable to be indifferent with regard to isolate accounts involving people who were killed or seriously harmed as a result of the fact that they had no guns to defend themselves. A series of individuals have lobbied with regard to situations that were life-threatening and during which they felt helpless because the government was reluctant to provide them with the right to purchase a firearm (DAILY MAIL REPORTER).

b. The Virginia Tech Massacre

The Virginia Tech Massacre is yet another school shooting that influenced individuals to believe that it is essential for the Second Amendment to be modified in order for gun control laws to be stricter. The 2007 shooting involved a single individual killing thirty-two people and harming another seventeen during two attacks. People thinking the Second Amendment provides criminals with little to no impediments in purchasing guns associate their thinking with the fact that Cho Seung-Hui was able to buy the weapons he used with the purpose of going through with his devastating plan. However, these people fail to consider that "by the time Cho was standing in front of special justice Paul Barnett of Virginia's Montgomery County in December 2005, he had already been accused of stalking by two women on campus, detained by police who were concerned about his sanity, and ordered by a magistrate to a mental health hospital where he would be evaluated" (Lindenberger).

Although the Virginia Tech Massacre sends a signal regarding gun control, it does point toward the fact that people in general should not have access to firearms. Instead, it emphasizes that gun control needs to be provided with more attention in order for people buying weapons to be able to demonstrate that they are mentally stable and that they are not likely to use the respective guns with the purpose of harming innocent individuals.

c. The political factor

What is even more disturbing about school shootings and gun control laws is that many politicians take advantage of the opportunity to gather as many voters as possible by expressing interest in modifying the way the Second Amendment is interpreted with the purpose of preventing criminals from gaining easy access to firearms. "Almost immediately after the murders in Newtown, gun control advocates and the Democratic leadership in the Senate decided that legislation strengthening background checks for gun purchases was their best avenue for success" (Peters).

The Obama Administration has concentrated on promoting background checks in order to determine whether or not an individual should be allowed to own a firearm. It would be wrong to say that the President's efforts are not likely to have a series of positive effects. However, people cannot possibly live in a utopia-like society and believe that such measures are going to reduce crime or that they are going to stop ruthless criminals from going through with their plans. Such political strategies are little more than window dressing meant to get voters to think that it would be in their best interest to vote with a particular party or individual (Taube).