United States Gun Control Essay

Firearms limitation. normally known as gun control. is a heatedly debated topic in and out of the political sphere. Advocacy groups propose more limitations. tighter restraints and harsher penalties for discourtesies. These advocates claim that force stems from guns and gun proprietors. gun makers and gun protagonists are to fault. Resistance groups to gun control suggest that lesser limitations. greater handiness of different types of pieces and more moderate penalties should be put in topographic point.

History and Background

“A good regulated reserves. being necessary to the security of a free province. the right of the people to maintain and bear Arms. shall non be in fringed. ” This is the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. With this individual sentence. Torahs. arguments. battles and contentions have begun. ended and are still being fought. Gun control can be defined as “government restriction of the purchase and ownership of firearms” . In the early yearss of our state there was small gun control. Guns were used both as protection from Indian incursions every bit good as tools for runing. It wasn’t until 1934 with the National Firearms Act. passed by Franklin D. Roosevelt. which “prohibited the sale and industry of automatic-fire arms like machine guns. short-barreled scatterguns and rifles. parts of guns like silencers. every bit good as other “gadget-type” pieces hidden in canes. ” ( Spitzer 141 ) This act came about from the anarchy and rise of gangster civilization during prohibition. The most controversial piece of statute law was passed in 1968. called the Gun Control Act. this act expanded licensing demands to include more traders. and more elaborate record maintaining. “Handgun gross revenues over province lines were restricted. every bit good as the list of individuals that traders couldn’t sell to grew to include those convicted of felonies ( with some exclusions ) mentally unqualified. or drug users. ” ( Spitzer 142 )

The chief intent of the measure was to extinguish the sale of pieces through the mail. or mail-order guns. Up until this clip. clients merely had to subscribe a statement that they were over the age of 21 in order to buy a pistol and 18 for rifle or scattergun. It wasn’t until 1994 that the following two major pieces of gun limitation statute law were passed. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. merely the Brady Act. and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. normally known as the “assault-weapons prohibition. ” The Brady Act imposed a five twenty-four hours waiting period and compulsory background cheque before a accredited trader could sell a pistol to a licensed client. Besides. there was the new FBI run National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

This system was in topographic point on Nov. 30. 1998 and applies to all firearm gross revenues. It allowed background cheques to be done over the phone or electronically with most consequences returned instantly. Spitzer describes the “Assault-Weapons Ban” being passed in order “to ban the industry. ownership. and importing of new semiautomatic assault arms and large-capacity ammo feeding devices. ” ( 152 ) This means that a big figure of semi-automatic rifles were prohibited along with magazines that held over 30 unit of ammunitions of ammo. Finally it prohibited juveniles from possessing or selling pistols. In 2002 the Justice Department. under Attorney General John Ashcroft. indicated that it interpreted the Second Amendment as back uping the rights of persons to possess and bear weaponries for protection every bit good as diversion and aggregation. ( Norquist 1 ) the history of gun control is long and complicated. with recent inclinations swinigin toward more relaxed controls.

Pro-Gun Control

In recent old ages. gun control militants. that is. those in favour of more limitations. have grown and been favored by the media. Some of these groups include handgun Control. Inc. . the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence. the Alliance to Stop Gun Violence. Mothers Against Violence in America and the international Stop Handgun Violence. ( Carter 75 ) With increasing media attending with more and more school shots. advocates of gun control statute law have frequently held that merely federal Torahs can be effectual. If non. provinces with few limitations will go on to be beginnings of guns that flow illicitly into provinces with more limitations. These groups believe that the Second Amendment is disused. or is intended entirely to guard against suppression of province reservess by the cardinal authorities.

They ask why a private citizen needs any piece that is non designed chiefly for runing or other recognized sporting intents. One mans answer to this inquiry was “‘There is no tradition of civilians having assault-type guns’” ( Edel 75 ) while another adult male states “…after much idea. I can see no justification for me – or others like me – to have a paramilitary assault rifle. ” ( Edel 76 ) Many advocates of piece limitations have advocated policy alterations on specific types of pieces or constituents that appear to be utile chiefly for condemnable intents or intents that pose unusual hazards to the populace. Fully automatic pieces and short-barreled rifles and scatterguns have been capable to strict ordinance since 1934. Fully automatic pieces have been banned from private ownership since 1986. except for those lawfully owned and registered with the Secretary of the Treasury on May 19. 1986. the twenty-four hours the prohibition was passed. ( Spitzer 139 ) The advocates of gun control have presented a strong and solid instance. Many steadfastly believe that guns should be banned throughout the state.

Anti-Gun Control

Oppositions of gun control vary in their places with regard to specific signifiers of control. By and large. they hold that gun control Torahs do non carry through what is intended. Many argue that it is every bit hard to maintain arms from being acquired by “high risk” persons. even under federal Torahs and rigorous enforcement. In their position. a more rigorous federal piece regulative system would merely make jobs for observant citizens. conveying mounting defeat and escalation of prohibitions by gun regulators. and perchance endanger citizens’ civil rights or safety. The group taking the conflict against gun control is the National Rifle Association. or the NRA. The NRA started as an organisation to advance the pattern of mark shot. After World War II. while the societal mentality on pieces became progressively negative. the NRA focused its energies on anti-gun control.

Using their freshly formed ILA ( Institute for Legislative Action ) the NRA lobbied politicians and inundated the media with literature and facts about the Second Amendment and how those rights were being infringed. Gun control oppositions besides reject the premise that the “only legitimate intent of ownership by a private citizen is recreational. ( i. e. . hunting and target-shooting ) ” ( Carter 81 ) Carter besides points out that those oppositions “…insist on the go oning demand of people for effectual agencies to support individual and belongings. and they point to surveies that they believe show that gun ownership lowers the incidence of offense. ” ( 85 ) Andrews sums up the difference in stance between Red ( Republican and pro-gun ) and Blue ( Democrat and anti-gun ) States. He says “ [ T ] his is why the Second Amendment is so annoying to Blue America.

The right to bear weaponries is the right to take a base. to move on the belief that you are right and person else is incorrect. and as such it is a menace to the amoral Bolshevism that the New Left embodies. ” ( 2 ) Here. Andrews explains that many anti-gun control activists view the issue from a moral point of view where the gun control advocates view the issue from an wrong “interests” point of view. Some oppositions believe farther that the Second Amendment includes a right to maintain weaponries as a defence against possible authorities dictatorship. indicating to illustrations in other states of the usage of piece limitations to control dissent and secure illicit authorities power. Whatever the instance. the peoples taking the battle against the control and statute law against guns carry on and ne’er give up. They believe morally and strongly that gun control is much excessively restrictive and infringes upon rights given them by the Constitution.

Drumhead

The argument over gun control has been difficult fought and intense. To gun control advocators. the resistance is out of touch with the times. misinterprets the Second Amendment. or is missing in concern for the jobs of offense and force. To gun control oppositions. advocators are naif in their religion in the power of ordinance to work out societal jobs. set on demilitarizing the American citizen for ideological or societal grounds. or moved by irrational ill will to pieces and gun partisans. “Guns don’t kill people. people kill people. ” ( NRA Slogan. 1980-Present )

Plants Cited

Andrews. Ned. “Why Guns Matter. ” The American Enterprise 01 Sep. 2002: 9+ .

Bijlefeld. Marjolijn. Peoples For and Against Gun Control. Westport. Nutmeg state:

Greenwood Press. 1999.

Carter. Gregg Lee. The Gun Control Movement. New York: Twayne Publishers. 1997

Cothran. Helen. erectile dysfunction. Opposing Point of views: Gun Control. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.

2003.

Edel. Wilbur. Gun Control: Menace to Liberty or Defense Against Anarchy. Westport.

Nutmeg state: Praeger Publishers. 1995.

LaPierre. Wayne R. Guns. Crime. and Freedom. Washington. DC: Regnery Publication.

Inc. . 1994.

Norquist. Grover. “Lesons of the Fall. ” The American Enterprise 01 Jan. 2003:
13.

Spitzer. Robert J. The Politics of Gun Control. Chatham. New Jersey: Chatham House

Publishers. Inc. . 1995.

The Definition of an Issue:

United States Gun Control