No to Gun Control; Yes to the Second Amendment
The second amendment of the constitution 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” (cornell.edu). The purpose of our founding fathers making this was to ensure the protection of the individual person. Banning semi-automatic weapons will have several negative effects on the well being of this country. The government cannot protect every individual from the evils of murder; murder that preys upon the defenseless. It is nearly impossible for a person to own a fully automatic weapon; therefore, banning semi-automatic weapons would merely take away the protection that citizens, according to the second amendment, have the right to own.
When law abiding citizens have lost their source of protection, the only owners of semi-automatic weapons will be criminals; criminals who do not follow the law; the law designed to protect those who follow it. The government will not be there when a murderer breaks into a house and kills a whole family because they were not allowed to own a gun. Different gun control policies all around the world will prove true that criminals are less likely to approach a person who most likely owns a gun themselves. Semi-automatic weapons should not be banned because removing guns will not stop the killing, removing the criminals will. In the meantime, let law abiding citizens protect themselves when the government cannot.
A semi-automatic gun solely means it fires one bullet every time the trigger is pulled. This includes basically the majority of the guns owned by citizens except a revolver, a pump shot gun, and a bolt action rifle. The process in obtaining any of the previously stated fully automatic weapons is both long and very expensive. They are also as, if not more, dangerous as semi-automatic weapons. Semi-automatic guns are being called assault weapons which of course makes...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document