by Adam Ugro

Created on: December 18, 2007

I do not believe that the question at hand is that of guns being the root cause of evil. The question should be more centered towards the availability of guns and how they are obtained and by whom. The times have changed and as the second amendment of the constitution spells out "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", the amendment itself is out dated and is no longer suitable for our day of age.

While there is no longer a need for any type of armed militia in America other than our government sponsored military, the right to bear arms is therefore null based on the need to bear arms. While law abiding citizens should be allowed to bear arms for hunting, sporting and protecting their home, the question remains of how many arms they need to possess to satisfy their rights spelled out by the constitution. As with any other law, the need for refining and finding the right equation to gun control is a sensitive subject and will continue to be so for a very long period to come.

First, we have to understand that guns do not commit the crimes, it is the gun's owner that commits the crimes. If there were no guns, it would be safe to say the crime would be committed by knife, and the list could continue. The person committing the crime will always find a tool to commit the crime with. While the gun seems to be the choice among the ones who commit the crimes, the need for a more restrictive gun ownership environment is appropriate and should be welcomed by those who do cherish their right to bear arms.

The type of gun should be a major factor in granting the citizen it's right to bear arms. When the constitution was brought to birth, automatic weaponry was not a consideration to the clause that gave the citizens the right to bear arms.Guns have evolved to a point where there needs to be a higher level of control of who can obtain them and what there need for them is. Is there any reason a home owner would need a machine gun for home protection? No, this is one clear example of how the Constitution has failed to allow reasonable understanding of the right to bear arms.
The right to bear arms has been misinterpreted and has been grossly abused in respective terms of why gun ownership was even allowed to be a right in the first place.

So, we come to the conclusion of the fact that their definitely needs to be gun control policies in place, and as there already is we continue

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>