Molly's Argument Essay: Gun Control In The United States
This existing policy of course is the second amendment. She explains how she highly agrees with the amendment but that people are seeing the amendment in the wrong way. 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” The author also has no facts to be proven, her argument is mostly surrounded by opinion and belief. The only facts she really has are the most obvious to everyone: like a person who drives a car is licensed or the second amendment has the word militia in it.
Mollys argument is about gun use and how nobody should own a gun. She talks about replacing the guns and comparing them to cars. She goes over how militias should be trained to fight without guns.
The reasoning to this argument is to:
Prevent killings from guns; Molly states that “Guns do kill” very clearly. She thinks with guns being banned that this problem will go away.
To have a stronger community; this one is not as obvious but you can tell when Molly state's “Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state.” she also explains …show more content…
I don't think she understands that if guns were banned or illegal like drugs people will always find a way to them because they were/are already been made. Just like people find their way to drugs because it's already here it's already made. Yes, there would possibly be a difference but it would most likely not change a lot of things. She also tells us how instead of the militias using guns they could study killing people with their bare hands. The problem with is there is always someone bigger and stronger than you no matter what and if the lets say the police show up with fist and a person has a weapon or they are just stronger than that fight could be quite unfair very
Mollys argument is about gun use and how nobody should own a gun. She talks about replacing the guns and comparing them to cars. She goes over how militias should be trained to fight without guns.
The reasoning to this argument is to:
Prevent killings from guns; Molly states that “Guns do kill” very clearly. She thinks with guns being banned that this problem will go away.
To have a stronger community; this one is not as obvious but you can tell when Molly state's “Permitting unregulated citizens to have guns is destroying the security of this free state.” she also explains …show more content…
I don't think she understands that if guns were banned or illegal like drugs people will always find a way to them because they were/are already been made. Just like people find their way to drugs because it's already here it's already made. Yes, there would possibly be a difference but it would most likely not change a lot of things. She also tells us how instead of the militias using guns they could study killing people with their bare hands. The problem with is there is always someone bigger and stronger than you no matter what and if the lets say the police show up with fist and a person has a weapon or they are just stronger than that fight could be quite unfair very