Liberal Argumentative Essay: The Right To Bear Arms

Another very prominent Liberal issue is their invasive nature into gun purchasing. This is another example of a Liberal belief that the more involved the government is the better. Which again proves to be more harmful than beneficial. The very act of gun control infringes upon one of the main values this country was built upon. The right to bear arms. It says in the constitution itself. If someone wishes to get a gun, they can get a gun. Prohibiting them or placing stricter laws will be of no benefit. While conducting background checks on individuals who wish to purchase a gun does have some rationale to it, it could make any law abiding American look like an unstable psycho for committing a simple act with no mal intent. For example, say a friend

Probably not (Rosenswig 1). The issue for most Conservatives and Libertarians alike is how much say should the government have in what types of weapons a citizen can own. This is where the argument and infringement upon rights comes from. "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms … serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man," said founding father Thomas Jefferson. It has long since been an argument whether or not the amendment can be interpreted as leaving only the militias with arms or if it was applicable to individual citizens as well (Rosenswig 1). The most noted writer of the Constitution is Thomas Jefferson. If Jefferson states that forbidding the ownership of arms encourages homicides opposed to preventing them, that leaves little up for interpretation. Through the exploitation of several mass shootings, former President Obama made these mass shootings out to be caused solely by guns, not by the mentally unstable individual who committed the horrendous acts. Thus making a call for more gun control in order to “control” and “prevent” these mass shootings (Kopel