The Pros And Cons Of Gun Control Laws In The United States

In the United States, it is estimated that one out of every three homes possess a gun and the frequent use of guns has been the center of many deaths and crimes. The purpose of writing this paper is not to evaluate the pros and cons of gun ownership but rather to review the gun history in the United States and see how the situation came to be as it is today. Over the years, the debate on gun control has attracted a series of critics and support from a diverse political force in the United States. Despite the existence of restrictive firearms laws being in place in America, regions such as Massachusetts account the death of three people per hundred thousand who are killed by guns per year (Hochschild, 2018). The Congress has continuously not

As passed by the Congress in the year 1971, the second amendment declares that "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." (Hochschild, 2018) The gun enthusiasts claim that this phrase protects almost every person who seeks to carry a rifle down to the street or even a gun to the church and therefore gun control violates the constitution. They further argue that individual right to own or possess a gun is similar to self-defense right and thus citizens should be permitted to have and keep handguns for their protection. On the other hand, the liberals maintain that the second amendments rights are only granted to a "well-organized militia" or like today's Switzerland standing army (Hochschild, 2018). They further argue that since the United States has a functioning police force and very powerful army, the original intentions of this phrase are no longer valid. Hence individual right to own a gun is not necessary anymore. Despite these confusions, the court has over the years made its rulings in favor of the gun enthusiasts. In response to these two arguments, I believe that the second amendment seeks to protect citizen's right to own a firearm that is unconnected with any militia service and the use of that firearm should, therefore, be used for traditional purposes

However, in a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, the second amendment has been declared for the first time to protect the individual right to gun ownership and self-defense. John Paul Stevens who was a Supreme Court judge in his 2008 dissent in the case District of Columbia v. Heller insisted that the second amendment offers zero protection in what he termed as "right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense." (Stevens, 2018). On that account, Stevens called for the repeal of the second amendment to allow for significant legislation on gun control. Nonetheless, I disagree with him since his position seemed to be wrong about the legal history in relation to the second amendment considering that in most cases this amendment had never been "uniformly understood." (Stevens, 2018) I believe that the views of Stevens are a perfect example of a person trying to claw and shortchange a portion of our bill of rights for the benefits of would-be censors and also overreaching