Category: 2nd Amendment

Gun Control in the USA and Second Amendment: Critical Analysis

If we compare gun laws in the U.S. with other countries, we see that in the U.S. it’s not that hard to get a gun and carry it around in public. The government is not allowed to completely regulate guns because of the 2nd Amendment. However, the right is not unlimited. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld some firearms restrictions, such as bans on concealed weapons and on the possession of certain types of weapons, as well as prohibitions against the sale of guns to certain categories of people. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits individuals under eighteen years of age, convicted criminals, the mentally disabled, dishonorably discharged military personnel, and others from purchasing firearms. In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandated background checks for all unlicensed individuals purchasing a firearm from a federally authorized dealer. In another way, they could make restrictive laws about guns. If the U.S. Government wants to low gun violence like other countries they have to pass restrictive gun laws in all states.

First, the U.S. can’t really ban all guns for several reasons. One of the reasons as I mentioned before is the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment says “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.” This made people confused because at the end it says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” this means that anyone can own a gun. But once we read it from the beginning it says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” First, let’s explain a Militia. According to the Oxford dictionary a Militia is a group of people who are not professional soldiers but who have had military training and can act as an army. This means that only a Militia can own guns. So the 2nd Amendment doesn’t make clear to own guns. Now during this era, there is no Milita so the constitution is sticking to the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The other reason is that the cultural and the mindset of Americans for loving guns and keeping guns to protect themselves from anything.

According to Small Arms Survey, there are 120.5 guns per 100 people in the United States. That makes it number one before Yemen (52.8 guns per 100 people). These numbers make Americans nearly own half (46%) of the estimated 857 million civilian-owned guns worldwide. Americans own the most guns per person in the world, about four in 10 saying they either own a gun or live in a home with guns, according to a 2017 Pew Center study. Forty-eight percent of Americans said they grew up in a house with guns. Seventy-two percent of Americans said they have shot a gun. According to the survey, a majority (66 percent) of US gun owners own multiple firearms, with nearly three-quarters of gun owners saying they couldn’t imagine not owning one.

Almost half of the guns around the world are owned by Americans, therefore there are lots of guns in this country, which means they will be lots of Gun violence. Let me first talk about Mass shootings. The FBI identifies mass shootings as four or more people killed or injured in a single location. According to Giffords.org, there is an average of one mass shooting every day. In 2018, student’s risk of dying in a school shooting reached the highest level in at least 25 years. 60% of teens were scared that they will be a school shooting in their school. All that but mass shootings still comprise a small fraction of all gun violence, with estimates showing that such violence constitutes less than 1% of all gun deaths.

According to GunArchive.org, there are 100 Americans die every day. That number is from gun suicide, homicide, law enforcement shooting, unintentional shooting, and undetermined. I’ll focus on gun suicide and, homicide more. The reason for that is because gun suicides are actually higher than gun homicide.

Talking about gun homicide first because the numbers are lower than gun suicide which was a shock to me because I actually thought it’s the other way around. The reason why there is still high numbers of gun homicide is that they are able to access a gun. According to everytownreserch.org, there is an average of 12,830 dies because of homicide. According to the same website, Black Americans represent the majority of gun homicide victims. In fact, Black Americans are 10 times more likely than white Americans to die by gun homicide.

Gun suicide, that its numbers have shocked me. According to everytownreserch.org almost 2 of 3 gun death is by gun Suicide. Access to a gun increase the number of people to suicide. According to a video by Vox titled the state of gun violence, when a person commits suicide with anything other than a gun, the majority of them survive. Guns make it impossible for them to have a second chance. According to everytownreserch.org there is an average of 22,274 people suicide yearly. This more than half of the people who die from gun violence in general. White men represent 74 percent of firearm suicide victims in America.

The law in the U.S. allows anyone to own a gun. All states have their own laws on how to hard is it and easy is it to get a gun. For example, Alaska, if you have a gun there you could walk with it anywhere like state park and even in a restaurant. Since Alaska has the weakest gun laws in the country they have the highest gun deaths. Compare this with California laws, Requires all gun sales to be processed through a licensed dealer, requiring a background check. Requires gun dealers to obtain a state license. Bans most assault weapons. And the gun death rate in Calfornia is low.

The public poll about more gun laws spikes after every mass shooting. According to a poll by NPR, Majorities of Americans support bans on high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault-style weapons, but there are breaks between the parties, men, and women, where people live and whether they own a gun. While Democrats and independents want Congress to pass them, Republicans do not. Men and women also divide, 72% of women are in favor of banning assault-style weapons, while 55% of men are against it. Americans say it’s more important to control gun violence (55% to 39%). The majority of Americans aren’t favored of guns yet, the gun laws are not strong.

Comparing the U.S. gun laws with other high-income countries we see that the U.S. laws are not that strong. Federal law provides the basis for firearm regulation in the United States, but states and cities can make further restrictions. Some states, like Idaho, Alaska, and Kansas, have passed various laws attempting to nullify federal gun legislation. As of 2019, there were no federal laws banning semiautomatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity magazines. There was a federal prohibition on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines between 1994 and 2004, but Congress allowed these restrictions to expire. In Canda, Firearms are divided into three classes: nonrestricted weapons, such as ordinary rifles and shotguns; restricted, such as handguns and semiautomatic rifles or shotguns; and prohibited, such as automatic weapons. It is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon unless it was registered before 1978. In Australia, The National Agreement on Firearms all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, mandated licensing and registration, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation. Among other things, the law also required licensees to demonstrate a “genuine need” for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety course. After another high-profile shooting, in Melbourne in 2002, Australia’s handgun laws were tightened as well. The U.K. introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act, which expanded the list of banned weapons, including certain semiautomatic rifles, and increased registration requirements for other weapons. Gun control had rarely been much of a political issue in Norway—where gun laws are viewed as tough, but ownership rates are high. Norway includes requiring applicants to be at least eighteen years of age, specify a “valid reason” for gun ownership, and obtain a government license—are ineffective. “Those who are willing to break the laws against murder do not care about the regulation of firearms and will get a hold of weapons whether doing so is legal or not. In Japan, the only guns permitted are shotguns, air guns, guns with specific research or industrial purposes, or those used for competitions. However, before access to these specialty weapons is granted, one must obtain formal instruction and pass a battery of written, mental, and drug tests and a rigorous background check. Furthermore, owners must inform the authorities of how their weapons and ammunition are stored and provide their firearms for annual inspection. All these countries make it hard for people to get guns.

Reflections on Whether America Should Repeal the Second Amendment

Few topics provide more polarising opinions and heated debates than the topic of gun control in the USA. Established in December 1791, the Second 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’. For most of the republics relatively brief history (1791 onwards), US citizens have had the right and ability to purchase guns freely, compared to most other first world countries. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the US population from tyrannical governments and street thugs. It must be remembered that the former British colony only had been independent from their past overlords for just over 12 years, and the fear of being enslaved and exploited by a corrupt organisation was rife among the American populace. This right to bear arms may have been essential in the 18th century colonial world, where Americas power was dwarfed by major colonial powers such as the British and French empires, however the modern globalist world (Where Americas military and economic power seems unchecked) may make this amendment redundant.

Recent atrocities, such as: Sandy Hook (27 killed), Virginia Tech (32 killed) and The Harvest Music Festival (58 killed), has brought a wave of outraged people suggesting a reform of the Second Amendment is long overdue. The predominantly Democratic left takes the stance that the Second Amendment is outdated, and either all guns should be banned, higher calibre and semi-automatic guns should be banned, or more rigorous background checks should be imposed so that guns are not given into the hands of potential mass shooters. However, the Mainly Republican right, blames the mental health of shooters for these massacres and the actions of a few psychopaths should not restrict law abiding citizens from their right to bear arms. The one thing all Americans can agree on Is that somehow, the seemingly regular massacres of innocents must be stopped.

The US is home to the most mass shootings in the world. America’s uncommon gun culture has resulted in a country where more of the nation’s population are killed by fellow citizens with guns than in any other high-income nation in the entire world. ‘Americans own 42% of the estimated 650 million civilian owned guns worldwide, according to the Congressional Research service 2012’. The distinct correlation between America owning the most civilian guns, whilst also experiencing the most mass shooting in the world, surely shows the US government must act somehow. Whether its tightening on gun control, banning guns or tackling mental health problems, something must be done to contain this epidemic.

The recent appointment of the right-wing, Republican, president Donald Trump, seems to suggest that Second Amendment will not be tampered with for the foreseeable future. Does the Second Amendment protect the US population from the potential of a tyrannical government wishing to enslave them or will it simply provide mass murders with the tools to commit atrocities.

Banning Guns Would Save Lives And Stop Mass Shootings

Prospect Magazine suggests that America needs to ‘grow up and ban guns’ as ‘an adult, civilised society does not consider it necessary for a private citizen to own an assault rifle’. The article uses the example of the Las Vegas mass shooting where just a single man ‘opened fire from a hotel window into a vast crowd of concert-goers, killing over 50 and injuring more than 400’. Straight away this fact shows the absolute carnage guns can inflict upon innocent civilians. The fact that only one man could endanger the life of hundreds of people in the space of minutes is a terrifying prospect. The gunman, Stephen Paddock (A local 64-year-old man) had over 10 rifles in his possession. To think that a civilian needs more than ten rifles just for himself is ludicrous. The Second Amendment states that ‘right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’, however the whole point of the Second Amendment is to protect the American people from danger. How can allowing one man to own more than 10 rifles for personal be safe? Many US citizens have arsenals which could adequately equip a small army. Surely, it would be beneficial if the government placed a restriction on the number of guns one person can own.

Personally, I don’t feel as strongly against the right to bear arms as the source does, since I believe in the American citizens rights to bear arms. Although, the fact brought up about the large collection of weaponry some people own, concerns me and seems totally unnecessary. Personally, I suggest that the US government should introduce restrictions in the number of guns the average American can own. There is absolutely no recreational purpose or need for anyone except a licensed guns sales man to own over 3 guns. The facts provided by the magazine show that Mr Paddock owned all his guns legally. This fact alone shows that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the safety of the American populace as a man was legally allowed to acquire a more than abundant arsenal which can cause the worst atrocity in US history. He is proof of the fact the government can’t be certain that someone will not use guns illegally and to cause harm to innocents. Paddock was licensed to own guns, showed no signs of mental illness and was a responsible gun owner. Paddock most likely could have committed the atrocity if he was restricted to buying only a few guns, but he would never of been able to inflict as much damage if he had less weapons.

Guns Do Not Mean Protection

The Telegraph states that ‘If more guns really made you safer, America would be one of the safest places in the world’. This point is very valid, since the whole objective of the Second Amendment is to protect the people and to empower them so that they don’t have to live their lives feeling intimidated or controlled. Yet it seems like every other week an atrocity occurs in America. The counter argument that guns can be used to stop the perpetrators is redundant to me. When you look into the accounts and reports of these horrific events, it’s almost always the case that the police or special services stop the shooters. The very thought of untrained civilians rushing into a war-zone like area is chaotic. The last thing we need in a modern democratic nation is vigilantes shooting at criminals. Personally, I believe we should leave this duty to the professionals so that less lives are endangered, and the chance of rescuing innocents is higher. An untrained person with a gun attempting to stop a shooter endangers the lives of the innocents. Also, the article states that ‘seven children or teenagers are shot dead on average every day’. Anyone being harmed is reason enough to take action against the loosely restrictive gun laws, however the fact that 7 innocent children/teenagers are shot per day is a nightmare scenario for any decent human being, let alone a parent. Parents now feel scared to let their children go to school in case of a school shooting occurs. Children should never be in danger whilst at school. School is a place of learning and education, where safety of the children is essential. Its true that it takes a monster to commit a school shooting, however there are thousands of psychopaths in society who will commit school shootings. Since 2009 there has been 288 school shootings in the USA. The entire G7 (the countries with the largest advanced economies in the world) has had 57 times less school shootings. Since 2009: Canada has had 2 school shootings, France 2, Germany 1 and Japan, Italy and the UK have had 0. All these countries are very similar in all aspects of society and law. Except one country who doesn’t have restrictive and strict gun laws. Can you guess which country? This clearly shows that there’s a clear link between free gun laws and school shootings. To me this signifies that the Second Amendment must be altered and become more restrictive.

Gun Control and Reduce the Number of Suicides

Huffpost, writes ‘gun suicides account for nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths, a percentage that has been steadily climbing each year’. You could argue that these people are mentally ill and even without access to a gun they will just use alternative methods of suicide. However, this is not the case. Most people think that suicide through a self-inflicted gun wound is the most painless and quickest form of suicide. If these mentally ill people did not have access to a gun, suicide rates would fall since it would become harder for people to kill themselves, and people would fear using other methods of suicide (e.g. overdose) through fear of it not being successful or even painful. The NRA refuses to admit that suicide has a correlation with gun violence. ‘Suicide is never mentioned in the phony safety campaigns’, thus showing that the US Government doesn’t even acknowledge the vast effect, that free access to guns in America has on the suicide rate. This oblivious attitude to facts among the avid Second Amendment supporters, who claim facts like this is simply ‘fake news’ is the reason why the gun problem in America is so gigantic. How is it possible, that mentally ill people can acquire guns? This is a recipe for disaster. Its no coincidence that that gun suicide rates are lower in North-eastern states, where gun laws are more restrictive. Obviously, an increase in treatment for mental health would be the best solution to prevent these suicides, however, it would also be beneficial if the access to guns were restricted for mentally ill people. I believe that someone who wants to purchase a gun must pass background and mental health checks. Massachusetts has the lowest rate of gun violence of all states, but it’s also known as a state with strong gun control laws.

The Second Amendment Is Outdated

We have to remember that the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791. Now we live in the 21st century, it should be about time that adjust these old laws to the modern climate. The 2nd Amendment and the ‘Right to bear arms’ was only introduced to prevent others from entering private land and committing crime when the law was not so established across the vast planes of America as it is today since it was only a new fledgling post-colonial state. ‘In 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were…roughly 251 police per 100,000 residents’. So surely this amendment is no longer necessary. If a criminal wanted a weapon and guns were illegal, they could simply just buy one off a criminal associate. Surely? However, if such weapons were banned, motivation will fall as the potential criminal would have to go through many black and illegal markets, which are maybe unreachable due to their lack of contacts. Why does anyone need a semi automatic weapon to kill an intruder? Isn’t a small calibre pistol enough? In summary, the idea of needing to possess a gun, is an outdated concept. We no longer live in the 18th century, so maybe Americans should stop living as people who lived in the 18th century and adjust the Second Amendment to 21st century life.

You Don’t Solve Problems By Adding to The Problems

You don’t try to add to a problem in order to solve it. For example, you don’t throw more petrol onto a fire to try and stop a fire. Guns are responsible for over 31,000 deaths in America. In Britain, due to highly restrictive gun laws, there are only a mere 35 people killed each year from guns. Also, the 2nd Amendment applies to militias, not civilians. According to the Week Magazine, studies show that there are more cases in which people are killed by guns than saved by civilians with guns. More studies support that when you have more restrictive and tight gun regulations that there will be lower rates crime. For example, in Hawaii, there are 16 laws against guns. There, there are less than 3 per 100,000 gun death a year. It is very easy to gain access to a firearm that could potentially cause a shooting. If you allow a mentally conflicted person to own a firearm, as seen in various mass US shootings, they can easily cause mass damage to innocent civilians. If that mentally unstable person didn’t have access to a firearm, then that mass shooting wouldn’t have taken place. More studies, according to Time Magazine, say that it would take more intense training than a police officer to take down a killer with a gun in a public area. Therefore, the idea of possessing a firearm is dangerous since more than likely it will result in civilians being caught in the crossfire. I think we can all agree its best to leave stopping shooters to the trained and experienced professionals.

If Guns Are Banned Wont Criminals Just Use Other Weapons

Basically every from of handgun is banned fin the UK, due to the Second Firearms Act of 1997. This tight control on handguns was a response to the tragic Dunblane Massacre (1996), where Thomas Hamilton (who was 43 years of age) walked into an Scottish primary school in the town of Dunblane and sadistically gunned 16 children to death before committing suicide. Since this massacre the rate of homicide in the UK (1996) was 1.12 per 100,000. It was 1.24 in 1997, when the Firearms Act was introduced, and 1.43 in 1998. The law seems to have not effected the rates of homicides, thus suggesting if the US abolished the Second Amendment and restricted the supply of guns, people would just use other forms of weaponry to commit crimes. Personally I don’t believe the rise in homicides is due to people not having guns to defend themselves, but it shows that banning guns does not reduce the rate of crimes. Also, it is to be noted that there has not been one school shooting since the Dunblane massacre but, in recent years there has been a sharp rise in stabbing and knife crime. ‘There were 40,147 offences in the 12 months ending in March 2018’. This suggests that if guns were to be banned in America, criminals would just use other weapons and it wouldn’t be an effective way to combat murder and homicide rates.

Criminals Don’t Follow Rules

The main thing any pro-second amendment activist will tell you is that even if guns were banned, ‘Americans own 42% of the estimated 650 million civilian owned guns worldwide, according to the Congressional Research service 2012’, and it would be imposable to make everyone hand over their guns . The purpose of gun laws are to ensure the states populace is protected by limiting their access to guns. Most criminals have no sense of moral obligation to abide the law. If guns were permanently banned, its very probable that criminals wouldn’t hand over their guns and ‘good’ law abiding citizens will have no weapons and the criminals will. This surely puts the average person at severe risk and this would most certainly lead to an exponential rise in gun crime. From this view, it seems that the already organised US society cannot risk enacting reforms to the Second Amendment as it could have catastrophic effects. As of 2010, the sale of guns became illegal within the city US of Chicago. The city’s murder count totalled 374 people in 2013. The ‘Murder capital’ of the US didn’t reduce its crime rate with stricter gun control, thus it seems illogical to enforce stricter gun control across the US.

Ability To Enforce Gun Restriction

There has never been a record of gun owners in the US. Thus to know who owns a firearm is extremely difficult. Estimates state that approximately 270 million weapons are owned in the US. This is approximately 89 firearms per 100 people, the most heavily armed citizens in the world. Its constitutionally, morally and physically imposable to go knocking from house to house asking every single American citizen to hand over their firearms. Gun owners would retaliate, riot or simply just hide their weapons. The very thought of banning firearms has immense repercussions, even potentially fracturing the union of states and potentially causing a second civil war. To be brutally honest, it is now too late for America to simply ban guns completely as their are too many firearms in circulation. To ban guns, it would take a long period of time and could only be achieved by gradual tightening of the Second Amendment.

Wondering if the Second Amendment Still Exists

Extreme gun control is a mistake in the United States because according to the Second Amendment, people of the United States have the right to bear arms. If people have additional gun restrictions, there will be more safety issues due to the fact that people cannot defend themselves, there will be hunting conflicts gun control is not about guns, it is about control. The foundation of our country was built on the right to own and control firearms. It only makes sense that the freest nation on Earth have the most freedom when it comes to gun laws.

By taking away the freedom to own firearms, the government is restricting the country’s personal freedom. If absolute gun control stopped all crimes and school shootings there would be no debate or arguments made against gun control. This is clearly not the case due to the fact that in 2018 the United States faced more school shootings than ever before. Crime results not from weapons but from social factors they prefer to ignore and avoid, such as poverty, family trauma, world hunger, job opportunities, and peer pressure. Crime has existed since Biblical times, and criminals were not using gunpowder during that period, so why should this be any different in the world we live in today?

People of the United States who think gun control is working are wrong. Just because a law is put out there does not mean people are going to follow it. Laws are voluntary, when they are enforced people have a choice to make. Either follow them and be a law-abiding citizen or go against is and be a criminal. Some people have started calling gun control ‘gun safety’, however this is just a fancy way for advocators of gun control to make it seem like they are on both sides. After a while, the only thing left to ban is you. They have banned all the guns and before you know it, your freedom is gone.

I grew up in a small town called Waconia. It is north of the cities and a place where people shoot cans for sport. At school, it was normal for the hallways and classrooms to be empty on Nov. 15, because the opening day of deer season was practically a holiday. It isn’t uncommon for kids in my hometown to have shot a gun before the age of 10. I used to love shooting pistols at tree stumps for target practice. It is normal to see unloaded guns laying around my house. My dad, an avid hunter, raised me in a way that made me think that the right to bear arms is one of the greatest rights we have.

Hunting with my dad is one of my favorite things to do. And I’d give it up in a heartbeat. Being at college has given me an opportunity to form my own opinions and beliefs about certain issues. Every morning before class, I turn on my phone and read breaking news as I get ready for the day. It feels like every day there is a different horror story where someone is shot down like a dog in the street. Not everyone who owns a gun is an expert on using one. Almost every morning I see gun violence on the news. It makes me sad and embarrassed that our country hasn’t figured out an effective gun control method. The NRA claims that gun control shouldn’t be associated with any emotional outbreak. Why not?

According to a (Gun Control Legislation specialist in domestic security and crime policy) as of 2012, the U.S has so many guns that there’s nearly one firearm for every person who lives in the country. Privately held arsenal is growing at an extremely fast pace. There are 8 million firearms manufactured globally each year, and 4.5 million firearms are bought by people living in the U.S. Don’t be mistaken, this doesn’t mean that everyone is packing heat. In truth, the majority of our population is still unarmed. 43% of Americans have guns in their homes. As stated by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. has over 11,000 homicides due to firearms each year. This amounts to about 70% of all homicides. Whether that rate seems high to you or not depends on your own personal thoughts. The U.S. isn’t the country with the most gun murders. That would be Honduras. However, there isn’t another country in the world with as many guns as the U.S.

The Significance of Well-Regulated Gun Ownership for the Democratic American State

Non-proliferation is a juridical action geared in obstruction and the possession of guns, particularly handguns. Alternatively, it is understood in consideration of larger point of view being legal restrictions as well as and limitation of actual custody and service of the shooting iron. Despite being constitutionally provided in the Second reform arms limitation is a controversial provision in the USA. On one hand, supporters about this notion argue on reduced access to shotguns will eventually reduce crime saving the lives which are unfortunately terminated due to homicides. On the other hand, the opponents disagree with reduction in accessibility of shooting iron since it infringes devoted civilians’ right to protecting themselves from danger and criminals. Well-regulated firearm ownership is a necessity to dependability of democratic state.

To support the thesis, concern of non-proliferation triggers necessity for appropriate interpretation of the further appeal to the US structure. This is a perambulation provision which is considered as it serves bring light the sense for Defense cut concern. The personage opinion might lead support this restriction in the ownership of the ordnance includes: the court’s decision on District of Colombia illuminates upcoming scholarly consensus that the Second Mending gives an entity mandate to control and take arms, equally there is no table evidence that indicates the reduction on rife ownership reduces crime rate, city inhabitants managing guns to enable them have self-protection against crime and criminal gangs, These were all seen to necessitate personal protection. Also, hunting supplemented dietary requirements was practiced as a commercial pursuit. Similarly, reinforcement of mortar ownership, Samuel Adams through composition of the populace nature has equally explicitly made alleged support for the personal takeover on cannon contrasted, it being entirely tied to the militia service. This is evidently raised in support of the further change.

According to Pew Research Centre research, concerning the facts about the cannon ownership in the USA, personal cannon ownership in the USA, personal protection tops the list. From a personal point of view, it is evidenced that an individual with a gun is more secured. For instance, those working in an office or an apartment are known to having privilege of holding rifles cannot be attached as opposed to those who have none, this goes to society and home level.

My personal view concerning The Second Reform in backing the acreage cannons, written law concerning the land has been given realism through allowing the free residents to have ambulation priority. This act of rifle accessibility is important since it is an inviolable and an inherent right of life in America. Once the vital authority is collectively or individually breached, the lone ability to protect against danger and tyranny altogether are retarded.

It may seem absurd when I bring in standpoint whereby the arm restriction may cause restriction to capability of USA authority when the civilian raises against the power it is possible avoiding to tyranny displayed through ruling agents. For example, 1911, in Turkey, Ottoman Empire killed 1.5 million Americans. Therefore, the support to cannon control curbs the situation of tyranny.

Contrast to opinions above for the argumentation the Second modification regarding the Gun control, the many issues which were equally considered includes: the Federal courts unanimously agreeing that the Second mending conserves the group authority of a nation to maintain militia, opposing expectation of a party interest to possess hardware for safeguard. This with exception of District of Colombia, increased gun accessibility by the individuals normally is associated by the citizens who take law in their own hands to deal with the suspects hence justice not being served as it is deserved and lastly the restriction is needed to curb the cases of homicides, murders, and accidents which are associated with the easy access to the guns.

Well-regulated firearm ownership is a necessity to the dependability of a free state, this a positive move and should be encouraged. Notably, a number of considerations should be put into place for the success of this move and for the benefit of all. Some of the considerations and recommendation are expanded backdrop analysis for machine acquisition, reinstatement of a communal ban on aggressive ammunitions; strict laws are enacted upon gun owners to curbing rising deaths, violence and crime which are related to the shotgun handling as a concern.

Works cited

1. Bellah, R. N. “Civil Religion, America”. Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Vol. 96, No. 1, (1967). Pg. 1-21.
2. Did the Sandy Hook Shooting Prove the Need for More Gun Control?. (n.d.). US News. Retrieved November 5, 2013, from http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/did-the-sandy-hook-shooting-prove-the-need-for-more-gun-control
3. District of Columbia v Heller. 554 U.S. Opinion of the Court. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf [accessed 10 Mar 2013] 2008.
4. Lipset, Seymour Martin. American Exceptionalism. New York: Norton. 1997. DOI: 10.2307/2675314
5. Pew Research. 2016. Gun Rights vs. Gun Control. http://www.people-press.org/2016/08/26/gun-rights-vs-gun-control/#total accessed 3 March 2017].