Pursuasive Argument Against Gun Control

Solution Preview

This actually took quite a bit of time to verify. I eliminated one of your bills, since it was not a gun control bill. I also went to the FBI source directly, and did not use a secondary source, as you had done. The remainder I filled out and found the proper source for. See response below.

The second amendment, without question, gives citizens the right to keep and bear arms. This was considered a means to check the power of the state. A well-regulated militia refers to the entire population. Unless this is somehow repealed, the right for law-abiding citizens to be armed cannot be infringed. It is a natural right since it derives from two sources: a) the natural desire for self-preservation and b) the natural and normal desire to protect oneself from either an out of control state or an invader..

Gun control is not going to address the real issue of why gun violence happens and gun control laws will not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Gun ownership by those who are legally permitted has no relation to crime. Legal gun ownership is rarely a problem in terms of crime and accident, and the numbers are improving. Criminals are the source of crime, no matter how they are armed. A survey by the department of Justice of the 5,340,000 violent crimes committed during 2008, only 8% were committed by offenders armed with a gun (Goldberg, 2013).

As the statistics will show below, those cities with very strict gun regulations have high rates of gun violence. The reason for this is simple: criminals normally do not, and cannot, buy their weapons legally. Hence, they buy them illegally, usually at a much higher price. In cities like Detroit and Chicago, about the only people who cannot carry guns are those with no criminal background and no history of substance abuse. In other words, gun control disarms the law abiding and (or so it seems) encourages the criminal element in society to prey on them.

The Second Amendment is to protect the people against tyranny in government. During Virginia's debate in ratifying the constitution, George Mason stated: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them" (1788). In addition, George Washington states in letter to Alexander Hamilton: "It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it." This is precisely what is meant by a popular militia, citizens are a part of it by the mere fact that they are citizens. Washington did not want a militia to be the sole entity in charge of defense, however, he had no difficulty with local militia's serving as law enforcement (VA Conv, 1788).

The first clause of the Second Amendment, the preamble, "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." There can be no question that the founders of the constitution refereed to "militia" the same way that Switzerland does today: it refers to all the people. In terms of original intent, it is difficult to find a single major figure in the Convention debates who was in favor of disarming the population. Patrick Henry states:

Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our ...