Anti Gun Control

Before the turn of the 20th century, guns were not an issue in the United States with many reasons contributing to this fact; however, guns have become a hot topic in the 21st century. Right-wing politicians promise to not take away citizens second amendment rights or villainize politicians who support gun control legislation. On the other hand, left-wing politicians say they will keep the American people safe and get guns out of the hands of people who will abuse the right to own a gun. With mass shootings and other gun violence polarizing American voters’ views on the second amendment, the next president needs to be aware of what the government can and cannot do in terms of legislative powers; however, the government has an interest in regulating
The second amendment of the Constitution 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.” Analysis of this clause varies depending on how one wants to interpret. For example, someone who views the amendment with the original intent of the framers’ might view the amendment as the states being able to rise up against the possibility of tyranny. If the president dispersed Congress and take away the State’s voice and choice to pass their own laws, that would be tyranny, and a state militia would be able to rise up against it with the weapons they were allowed to have. To a person who wants to read it as the amendment is written, the right to own guns should not be infringed because citizens need a well-regulated militia to protect our liberties. The difference is that the protection against tyranny is not implied in this belief. Critics believe that the Constitution should be read and interpreted as Americans now. To which, a well regulated militia is not what citizens have. Even though citizens can have certain high powered and high magazine
The Columbine shooting in 1999 heavily reported by media, taking the gun control argument by storm. The problem is Harris and Klebod obtained their shotguns and rifles from a gun show, not a licensed dealer, thus not under the scrutiny of laws except the person had to be above the age of 18 (Schildkraut). The gun show loophole, extending to the Internet, is how many other mass shootings such as the theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, the Sandy Hook school shooting, and the recent Orlando night club, contribute. The purchase of high power rifles such as an AR-15 over the internet or at a gun show by a person with no background check needs to end. Laws need to be enacted to prevent loose sales of guns at shows to anybody. Congress should be able to prevent this from happening because of the commerce clause, but politicians vouch they will never take away the citizen’s right to own a gun, even though they are not preventing the transaction of citizen’s to go to a licensed dealer to obtain guns. If there is still a possible way for someone to obtain a gun legally but without the mandatory background check, needless gun violence will continue to happen, because people not capable of owning a gun will continue to obtain these. People do not argue against not obtaining guns by mail order anymore since John F. Kennedy