Gun Control 2

Name:
Professor:
Course:
Date:
Gun Control
In recent times, the media has been abuzz with gun control discussions and debates due to the recent shootings that have been reported eliciting much emotive responses from both pro gunners and con gunners alike. The challenge is therefore, once again, upon us, to prepare ourselves for a debate and action that will lead to the prevention of further unnecessary loss of lives through irresponsible use of guns while at the same time protecting our constitutional right to bear arms (Crooker, 24).
In as much as both liberals and conservatives both support a degree of gun control, they do not present similar proposals to tackle this rising problem and as a result, this different approach, is creating a debate in the manner in which gun control should be handled. When we look at the bill of rights that are entrenched in the American constitution, we see clear intentions of our forefathers for every citizen to enjoy a safe and retain natural rights as Americans. In order to appreciate a more accurate position of the constitution we should then analyze the motivation (Congress (U.S.) 274) behind the 2nd Amendment and then seek to clarify the critical debate between the pros and cons of this important issue among Americans.
In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. The Second Amendment is the only amendment to the Constitution, which states a purpose. The word "militia" has several meanings. It can be a body of citizens enrolled for military service where full time duty is required only in emergencies or the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service (Carter, 56). With a better understanding of the aforementioned significant ideas, we can now turn to the thoughts proposed by differing positions.
As we have already stated previously in this passage, we often find ourselves engrossed in deep-heated discussions in an attempt to find a solution, if possible, to the rising number of gun and gun-related violence cases whenever another tragedy grabs news headlines and the nation`s attention in the US. It is not an easy question to address and many haven`t formed full opinions about. This can be attributed to the fact that more often than not the anti-control arguers have always had a sustained ability to stun in their discussion and therefore altogether eclipsing the troubles that affect our society that stem from these weapons (Crooker 52).
If we take time and look at it from a neutrality point of view, we can effectively conclude that pro-gun debate points often tend to have weighty issues addressed in a very concrete manner. This is not to say that we should allow the pro-gunners to have an advantage in the articulation of points that tend to support their argument but rather the manner in which these arguments are brought forward tends to add more value and bring forth interesting view points to the whole debate and therefore elicit quite a level of in-depth thought. But as we continue discussing what we really do with guns it is important to also keep side notes of what guns have done and may do to us.
Fair enough, we have repeatedly heard statements such as: "Guns don`t kill people, people kill people" (Merill 216). But isn`t it evident that the manner in which guns have changed the way people kill people and also change the manner in which we as people view killing? When someone is in a possession of a gun, how that someone responds to situations, for better or for worse, is the real question here. This is because, obviously, this individual is already having an access to an option he may not have had anyway. But is this access only restricted to guns? One could have access to other deadly, even though less deadly, weapons such as knives etc.
We need to discuss these changes if we expect to be able to advocate against gun control effectively. We need to challenge ourselves with questions such as whether guns can lean an individual toward confrontational tendencies or not.
We cannot be entirely sure that control on guns can prevent or would have prevented these tragedies but if we develop a fear for gun control then this can potentially bar us from understanding them. To own a gun is something that has been in the American culture for quite some time and allowing discussions on whether or not it is right to introduce gun introduce gun control measures will require that we acknowledge this important bit.
Recent activities where people have gone on a shooting spree killing numerous innocent children remain isolated cases. This is because the persons have been found to be psychologically disturbed and hence does not make guns bad. Arguing on such grounds would mean that we shift the blame to guns rather than the root cause of the problem. The people opposing guns should know that there are other people who own guns and they do not just wake up and spray people with bullets rather it is due to frustrations of life, or what they watched on TV (Crooker, 52).
We can have a glance at the three main points that conservatives use to support the right to own guns. First, as we have already stated and will later highlight once more, is the fact that gun ownership exudes the spirit of the American Revolution in as much as it is a constitutional. The founding fathers were often terrified by the thoughts of tyranny and so when they created this democracy they made it a point to constitutionally frame a need for every individual to protect themselves from the any potential terror from the government of the day. In as much as the language of the constitution may be termed as ambiguous by some, an argument against gun control can be derived from the same reading as often the thoughtful gun advocates do. George Mason, who was the principle of the US Bill of Rights once explained what a militia is by saying: "A well-regulated militia, composed of the Gentlemen, Freeholders, and other Freemen was necessary to protect our ancient laws and liberty from the standing army." We can note how the word "regulated" is used, which can be interpreted as an avenue for regulation of firearms that is legal (Kennedy & Kennedy, 2005). Americans often hold the thought that they ought to be free as stipulated in the constitution, and owning a gun guarantees that very freedom.
Pro gun advocates also remind those in favor of gun control that a right is a right and we do not need t justify what is already in the constitution. So someone may ask: "Why would you need to gun?" This is a redundant question according to many gun advocates. The constitution already says an American can own a gun if they so wish, so why would an individual or group question the very own words? To add on to this particular point, it can only be seen as an assault weapon if it is used to assault another person - which is not the reason the gun was initially intended for in the constitution. Moreover those advocating for more control on guns ought to know that there are no good guns and neither are there bad guns. It is that the gun is in the hands of either a good or bad person. A gun in the hands of a good person poses no threat to anyone, except, people who are bad.
A third main argument often fronted by conservatives is that guns save lives too. So, since thousands of guns are already in the hands of criminals in America, it can only make sense for the rest of Americans to agitate for their right to own. There is also evidence that shows a strong correlation between a decline in the rate of violent crime and the liberalization of gun laws.
There are good pro gun arguments out there that have elicited quite a great deal of deep thought. For example, in The Gun Is Civilization by Retired Major L. Caudill (USMC),(Spitzer 51) the writer argues that human beings more often deal with each other only in two ways, either by reason or by force. He states that when one wants to do something for someone else he or she has the choice of doing so through convincing me or by argument or confrontation, or by forcing the other person altogether. Each and every single human interaction, he argues, falls under one of these two categories, with no exception. Up to this point, this seems to hold water, reason or force, nothing else.
When we look at the hallmarks of true socialization we do realize that humans interact exclusively through persuasion. This is what a civilized works. Force has really no place in as a method that can be considered valid as a form of soc...