Changes

The allocation and availability of firearms to Americans has caused numerous heated arguments, as guns are associated with the proliferation of illicit activities.  However, this privilege was granted to us by our founding fathers during the formation of our country, via the Bill of Rights.  The second amendment of this foundational document states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  Is this entitlement, which was created a little over two centuries ago, obsolete and in need of reformation?  A rescinding of this dispensation to American citizens by the government would be imprudent and unwarranted and would need to be met with the uppermost means of protestation.  Citizens should be allowed to convey armaments because it is a betterment of their protection on several fields, should not suffer because these practical apparatuses are misunderstood by several politicians, and are useful and recreational if employed responsibly.

The allocation and availability of firearms to Americans has caused numerous heated arguments, as guns are associated with the proliferation of illicit activities.  However, this privilege was granted to us by our founding fathers during the formation of our country, via the Bill of Rights.  The second amendment of this foundational document states, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  Is this entitlement, which was created a little over two centuries ago, obsolete and in need of reformation?  A rescinding of this dispensation to American citizens by the government would be imprudent and unwarranted and would need to be met with the uppermost means of protestation.  Citizens should be allowed to convey armaments because it is a betterment of their protection on several fields, should not suffer because these practical apparatuses are misunderstood by several politicians, and are useful and recreational if employed responsibly.

 

A superior means of defense for the population is the first reason why guns should be carried by citizens.  Contrary to popular belief, armaments are not just purchased by lawbreakers; they are acquired by upstanding citizens whose only thought in the obtaining of the weapon is self-defense.  A prohibiting of the distribution of firearms would cause the population to become more vulnerable to crime.  Protection is sorely needed in America, which had 11,350 murders by shooting in 2005<ref>http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html</ref>, compared with 50 in 2005/06 in the UK, which restricts the possession of handguns.<ref>http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf</ref> Passing stricter laws on gun distribution (such as in the UK) would only cause more difficulty for law-abiding citizens who wish to arm themselves, as criminals use illicit means of obtaining firearms.  Also, muggers, rapists, and murderers possessing the knowledge that the individual they are attempting to take advantage of owns a gun, are less likely to attempt the illegal action.  As Cesare Beccaria, an 18th century Italian Criminologist stated, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”  A secondary protection for the general public conveying arms is the safeguard against tyranny from a corrupt government.  Because of its armed citizens the administration of the United States cannot enforce its laws upon the people by the use of the sword.  If the actions desired by these politicians were taken, only the military would be armed, causing our democracy to become a dictatorship.  This was the case in the formation of several totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the Soviet Union.  As United States Senator Hubert Humphrey correctly believed, “The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which…historically has proven to always be possible.”  In essence, the bearing of firearms establishes our freedom to have a voice in legislative decisions.   

A superior means of defense for the population is the first reason why guns should be carried by citizens.  Contrary to popular belief, armaments are not just purchased by lawbreakers; they are acquired by upstanding citizens whose only thought in the obtaining of the weapon is self-defense.  A prohibiting of the distribution of firearms would cause the population to become more vulnerable to crime.  Passing stricter laws on gun distribution would only cause more difficulty for law-abiding citizens who wish to arm themselves, as criminals use illicit means of obtaining firearms.  Also, muggers, rapists, and murderers possessing the knowledge that the individual they are attempting to take advantage of owns a gun, are less likely to attempt the illegal action.  As Cesare Beccaria, an 18th century Italian Criminologist stated, “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms…disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”  A secondary protection for the general public conveying arms is the safeguard against tyranny from a corrupt government.  Because of its armed citizens the administration of the United States cannot enforce its laws upon the people by the use of the sword.  If the actions desired by these politicians were taken, only the military would be armed, causing our democracy to become a dictatorship.  This was the case in the formation of several totalitarian regimes, such as Nazi Germany, Communist China, and the Soviet Union.  As United States Senator Hubert Humphrey correctly believed, “The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny which…historically has proven to always be possible.”  In essence, the bearing of firearms establishes our freedom to have a voice in legislative decisions.