The Two, Opposing Stances On Gun Laws In America

December 3, 2017

The Two, Opposing Stances On Gun Laws In America

With an ever-increasing number of school shootings, outright massacres in public settings, murders, and armed robberies that end requiring the need for a Los Angeles personal injury lawyer for those involved, many activists believe that gun laws in America are simply far too lenient for keeping the public protected. This is not surprising given the the second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the citizen’s right to freely bear arms. Although largely disarming the public seems to be the most obvious solution to increased gun violence, however, many American voters are not willing to give their Second Amendment rights up without a fight. Following are some very important things for U.S. citizens to know about the two, opposing stances on gun laws in America.

The Benefits Of Protecting The Right To Bear Arms

There is one, obvious benefit in protecting the average civilian’s right to bear arms. This is that the government should never be more powerful than the American people combined. This is because the Constitution is based entirely upon the premise that the U.S. Government is a government by the people and for the people. When the people are overpowered by their government, the ability to revolt when parties in power overstep their boundaries has been eliminated entirely. Sadly, however, gun rights activists assert that this balance of power has already changed and that the ability to carry and bear arms only gives the American public a false sense of security. Those who actively study power dynamics in the U.S. would certainly agree.

The Opposing Side

There are certainly valid arguments for the opposing side. More people with criminal histories, dubious psychological pasts, and other issues preventing them from engaging in responsible gun ownership are nevertheless being sold weapons. Moreover, many of these same individuals have been responsible for terrorist acts and recent public massacres. In these cases, the obvious assumption is that stricter gun control would prevent these people from gaining access to the very weapons that they are using to take innocent lives and to wreak havoc on the public in general.

Two things to consider before choosing sides in this issue, however, are:

1. A large portion of recent gun violence can also be attributed to the police, and

2. many criminals who have taken lives with guns have not obtained them legally.

As such, before altering gun laws in America, these two problems must be corrected. In fact, doing away with both of these issues through improved police training, and better gun control as it applies to the illegal disbursement of weapons, could allow for a much higher level of public safety without impacting Second Amendment rights at all.

Creating A Slippery Slope

The “slippery slope” theory implies that once changes are made to what are considered to be unalienable rights, people stand to only lose more of the freedoms that this democratic nation holds dear. In order to protect the public, however, there’s an obvious need to establish stricter controls on the legal sale and purchase of firearms, particularly rapid-fire weapons that have no practical use in a civilian setting. The primary concern when implementing legal changes is how to establish legislation that does not do away with Second Amendment rights entirely, while still remaining sufficient for establishing higher levels of safety.

  • 0