The right to bear arms in todays society
The right to bear arms in today’s societyThe Right to Bear Arms in Today’s Society
The Second amendment of the Bill of Rights has arguably been the subject of a most controversial debate in our government. The Amendment states, “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” (O’Connor 469). In the drafting of the Bill of Rights, memories of British rule were still fresh in the minds of many; therefore, one of the main objectives of the Second Amendment was to insure the capability to defend liberty against any party that may pose a threat to it. In today’s society there are opposing views on the significance of the right to own a gun. As a sportsman, hunter, and collector of guns, I intend to address some of the popular arguments associated with the issues of gun control and will support my stand on the importance of this right to bear arms with research and persuasion.
Many people blame guns for the increasing crime in our nation, and others stand up for their right to bear arms and demand that the problems lie in the system that fails to adequately deal with the people that are committing the crimes. Some groups lobby the nation’s capital on both sides of the controversy trying to convince the government to join their side of the battle. The NRA (National Rifleman Association) is one of the most powerful lobbyist organization in the country and the nation’s most influential group supporting for the right to own a gun. The anti-gun lobbyists are in smaller, less influential numbers striving for waiting periods placed on the purchase of firearms, background checks that would prevent the sale of firearms to individuals with a mental or felony record, or total bans on the purchase and ownership of guns.
The anti-gunners take many approaches in their efforts to eliminate the Second Amendment from our Constitution. Based on the belief that the guns are to blame for the crimes they are used in, many believe that waiting periods would ignite a massive reduction in gun-related crimes. Also, they believe the waiting periods would prevent crimes of passion by providing a cooling-off period. During these waiting periods, the gun dealer would conduct a background check on the customer. If a background check showed any mental record or felony in the buyer’s past, the sale would be denied. Many criminals convicted of felonies have their charges dropped to misdemeanors through plea-bargaining which would enable them to still purchase a gun. John Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan with a gun that he purchased just prior to the attempt, but even with a background check he met all of the qualifications to buy a gun. “In California, Connecticut, Washington, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, and New York, the homicide and violent crime rates increased after the waiting periods were installed” (2NRA 7). Gun control laws can’t reduce crimes when “five out of six” (4NRA 20-21) guns used in crime are obtained illegally on the black market.
In other efforts to abolish our Second Amendment rights, many guns are labeled choice crime guns and are singled out for tough laws against them. Military assault rifles make up one of these groups yet only one half to three percent of gun crimes involve them. Handguns are fiercely sought after but “99.6%” (4NRA 4-5) of them are never used in a crime. Also, the plastic, undetectable gun was a hot issue, but the fact is “there is no 100% plastic gun made with no detectable metal” (Corbin 50). They are also after a complete ban on armor-piercing bullets. “The truth is, no law officer was ever killed by an armor-piercing bullet penetrating body armor, and the original ban would have included 70% of all hunting ammunition” (Corbin 50). Another proposed ban is on the semi-automatic gun. The semi-auto is defined by a repeated fire without manual reload. The ban would have included many sporting and hunting guns with this same mechanical process.
There is no denying the fact that many people have no business possessing a firearm due to their lack of responsibility and intelligence. The need for prevention of these people from obtaining guns is essential, but must be carried out in such a way that does not infringe the rights of law abiding citizens to bear arms. The most effective way to screen the buyers of guns is with an automated computer system that has all of the information necessary to validate or deny the sale. This system requires the state to keep accurate records on its citizens and can be helpful in looking up information about individuals for other purposes. The state of Georgia adopted a background check system such as this and it went into affect January 1996. The need for a waiting period to do a background check is now eliminated because all to the information on a prospective buyer can be accessed in just a few seconds. This process of background checking is excellent because it eliminates those who should not own guns and doesn’t infringe on the rights of a United States citizen.
The Second Amendment is not the only amendment in favor of the sixty million plus gun owners in America, but also the Fourteenth Amendment. This Amendment states, “No state shall deprive any citizen of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States” (Corbin 51). This Amendment is to unify the Bill of Rights to protect it from alterations by the states.
Instead of efforts to impose costly ineffective gun laws that would only violate the rights of law-abiding citizens, more effort should be put into realistic solutions to our crime problems. The first step in this process would be to recognize the conservative view that people should be held responsible for their actions and pay the price when they commit a crime. Also, there is need for much improvement in our justice system such as; mandatory sentencing for those who commit violent crimes, no parole for those convicted of violent felonies, no probation for those convicted of violent felonies, no plea-bargaining for violent criminals, tougher bail restrictions, capital punishment charges for those who murder law enforcement or corrections officers, and better legislation procedures to ensure swift certain justice. If both sides of this conflict over the Second Amendment would just hands and strive to meet the goals previously mentioned, the crime problem as a whole could be minimized without interfering with the rights of the people.
As you see, the efforts by many in this country are to constrain the rights given in the Second Amendment. So far the success of these people has been minimal and organizations such as the NRA have been invaluable to the protection of gun owners rights. The crime statistics in countries such as Japan and Britain are not to be attributed to tough gun laws, but to little crime to begin with and severe punishments to the few criminals that they have. As the drafters of the Constitution included the Bill of Rights, each amendment was given much consideration and ratified under the pretense that it would be for the good of the country for generations to come. With the millions of people that enjoy sporting events and hobbies that involve guns and the many more that simply have one for the security of their homes, there should be no question that these rights should not be interfered with. Although there are many problems concerning people with guns in this nation, I hope I have addressed the issues brought up by the anti-gunners with solutions and facts that would put us on the right track to eliminating our problems; and at the same time preserving the rights due to us by the Constitution of the United States.