Gun Control Essay -- Second Amendment The Right To Bear Arms

crampfish control in the unify States has been a controversial issue for some time now. So lots so that the Supreme Court even refuses to address this issue directly. Gun control re exclusivelyy boils down to the the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Many people sire different interpretations of the Second Amendment and the trenches are dug in deep on this issue. The Second Amendment can non provide the right to concede all role plantters cases of harness to protect the people from establishmental tyranny. If the Second Amendment was absolute, then we would fall by the wayside the public to possess nuclear weapons, missiles, and other such arms, because like the 9 mm handgun that is an arm, a nuclear warhead is also a type of arm. The more than our government confines our rights to own certain types of arms, the more license we lose. Should the government make citizens disclose information such as your views, associations, and private history in rate to obtain an arm? Which types of Arms should be prohibited? The Second Amendment clearly states A well regulated Milita, world necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to take note and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. The question then is not if we should restrict arms ownership, but how much we should restrict arms ownership or how much freedom we are willing to sacrifice?     The Second Amendment does not say that certain peoples with certain views are the only ones who are allowed to bear arms. The government must be very careful about what they charter in order not to infringe on our personal rights. I feel that it is wrong for government agencies to ask your political views in order for you to obtain a gun. It is not their right to decide which views are delightful for gun ownership. The government must provide the right to bear arms equally to all citizens. If the government could completely regulate who had weapons and who didnt lose w eapons there would be no equality among the people. The reason being is the government would abusively allow their supports to own weapons and the non supports would be without weapons to defend themselves. This would create an wild society that would install fear in to the non supporters. So where should the government preventive? I believe the government should only be able dismission a cross check with some database of repeat offenders and known terrorists. all(a) who dont raise a ... ...u may see that owning one of these weapons would increase shooting and so forth, but I believe that if you necessitate to shoot someone you are going to do it regard slight of what type of weapon you have, and you could possible in danger a lot more people with a now easily obtain legal sniper mood rifle. In most states there is no check what so incessantly other than you age in order to obtain such a gun. On the other hand there are extensive context checks in order to obtain a .22 Cal handgun of much less power. I dont think that we need to dictate what type of fire arms people own, instead let us set a some other type of limit.      All things considered, I think criminals are obtaining more and more illegal arms with great transformation while the general publics choices in firearms are becoming much papery and under matched with todays criminals. We must change the laws to allow our citizens to genuinely protect themselves from these people. And the government should do only minimal background checks in order to assure society as a whole security system and not its own.Works CitiedACLU Policy 47 http//www.lectlaw.com/files/con11.htmCopyright William Thomas