In discussions of Gun Politics, on the controversial issue has been eradicating the 2nd Amendment. On the one hand, the Left argues that guns are linked to violence, and the country would be better off banning all guns. On the other hand, the Right contends that it’s the people who use guns in the wrong way are the ones that should be held responsible, and society as a whole should not be held accountable for the actions of a few. My own view is that they the country should put more guns in the hands of civilians so that it would make the criminals think twice about starting violence. Gun politics have been debated for decades but it wasn’t until recently that it became one of the leading issues. Through examining both sides of the argument, …show more content…
This idea includes the passing of Gun Laws that would strictly regulate the process of buying guns. One subset of this proposition is creating background searches that ensure the mentally ill cannot possess a firearm. Of the options for more gun regulation, this one is by far the front-runner. Even though some gun regulation laws are sound ideas there are many that would pose the potential to hurt this nation. Another gun regulation law that has been brought up is the banishment of all high powered weapons. Although this would prevent murderers from dealing mass damage it compromises the sole reason the second amendment was created. “The right to bear arms” means the right to own weapons for the purpose of defense. In 1776, this meant citizens could own muskets which was the weapon of choice at that time. In today’s society it should be interpreted the same way which means that citizens have the right to own the same weapons that the military uses. This refers back to the fear that one day our government might become tyrannical and try to seize power from the citizens. By allowing the people to house the same guns that the military uses it ensures that our citizens would have a fair fight if they ever needed to rebel against a tyrant. Although many