Second Amendment and Gun Control Essay
Second Amendment and Gun Control Essay

Second Amendment and Gun Control Essay

Available Only on StudyHippo
  • Pages: 14 (3630 words)
  • Published: December 30, 2021
View Entire Sample
Text preview

Identification of the Problem

In the last ten years, there have been numerous murder cases in which most of them have been caused by citizens who own guns either legally or illegally. Gun ownership in the United States has been something taking place for quite long. Under the leadership of United States’ current president Barrack Obama, the level of crimes related to gun ownership have escalated at a very high rate as compared to the previous years before he got into power. Cases of people using guns to kill innocent people have been repeatedly given headlines. This has thus forced the emergence of a new issue of restrictions on ownership of guns in US (Cook et al, 2008). Some of these rules are directed to those who specialize in manufacturing, transporting and retailing of g

...

uns. Once the new laws have been put into place, people will be forced to obtain licenses before they get involved into such practices. This law however is not specific as to whether it will apply to those involved in gun business by selling in shops or to those dealers who carry out their business practices online. According to US President Barrack Obama, the new laws imposed on firearms will be majorly aimed at doing away with the current issue of violence in the United States. This issue has come along with divisions in that some of the people are for it while the remaining percentage is against gun control. NORC which is an institute of social and economic research based in the University of Chicago does biannual surveys about possession of guns and the views given by the public on gu

View entire sample
Join StudyHippo to see entire essay

control. According to their recent survey, the data obtained show that 31% of citizens in 2014 own guns back in their homes. This was a decrease from the previous statistics of 36% in 2010 and 41% in 1994 (Moorhouse & Wanner, 2006).

Of late, gun control politics have been shifting from time to time. Democrats have been having a fear in that it would cost them a lot of votes by loudly advocating for imposition of stricter gun ownership laws. Currently, President Barrack Obama together with Hillary Clinton (democratic presidential frontrunner) have unapologetically decided to act against the views of the National Rifle association. Obama has accused the NRA by claiming that they have a “stranglehold on congress”. He added that the safety of United States’ citizens is far much important than individual interests of NRA. Nearly all democrats have been convinced that imposing strict gun laws will not affect them negatively (Moorhouse & Wanner, 2006). They have already been made to believe that NRA is not a big threat as it once used to be. Those who own guns will be required to ensure that regular checks have been conducted on them. According to US President, this will play a very significant role in curbing the problem of gun violence. Gun rights organizations will have an easy time in identifying which gun got involved in a particular incident of murder. In this way, those who would have involved in murderous shootings will be controlled as they will have a fear in that they mind be identified. In addition to posing strict laws on gun ownership, this law comes along with laws in which severe actions

will be taken in the case a person’s gun has been identified to have been used in gun violence actions. This piece of writing therefore seeks to give a review of the current literature on the problem identified above. It will in addition assess both the weaknesses and strengths of the now policy and then come up with potential approaches to be taken (Cook et al, 2008).

Literature Review

The History Behind Today’s Legislation of Gun Control in the United States

For a quite long period of time, guns have comprised a very significant part of culture in America. Possession of guns has been taking place for quite long even before United States of America was born. However, times back then were very different and not like the case of today. To be more specific, gun control is majorly concerned with regulation of ownership and sales of firearms in the United States (Cook et al, 2008). Gun control legislation as of late is mostly under the governance of the state law. Through the United States, several supporters of this current issue of gun control have been fighting for a very long period of time with the aim of making sure that guns are regulated as this will reduce levels of gun violence. At the same, another group is against imposition of strict gun control rules. They have a fear in that it will be difficult for the civilians to obtain guns once strict laws have been imposed. This will make them prone to attacks as they will only be left with inferior weapons for defending themselves against criminals. Some of these inferior weapons include knives, spears, swords, bows

and arrows among several other weapons used by civilians (Cothran, 2003).

According to Johnson, (2005), some people may be left with some questions as to why United States did not find it easy to adopt gun control policies which have been in practice in some of the countries in Europe. The answer to such types of questions are however simple. None of the countries in Europe had to implement gun control laws in an environment where gun ownership had been part of the countries culture and history for quite a long period. In addition, none of these countries was in a situation in which nearly 50% of the total population own guns back at their homes. It is hence not that easy to implement strict gun control laws in a culture used to living with guns. United States as opposed to other countries in the world have had many citizens possessing guns (Spitzer, 2008). Early during the birth of the United States, people were allowed to carry firearms in public. People during those times were not burdened by laws that restricted private ownership of firearms. Each colony made its local laws and hence it was tasked with the responsibility of its own protection. Hence every male was supposed to ensure that he was strongly armed and always be in readiness to fight for his colony whenever a problem arose (Johnson, 2005). A 1972 federal law in fact required every man to look for an ammunition and a military-style gun as part of serving in the citizen militia. Every white man in other words who had sworn loyalty towards revolution in America was supposed to acquire a military

firearm and have a clear knowledge of the way it works. All through this period, gun ownership restrictions were developing at a very slow rate (Moorhouse & Wanner, 2006).

According to American history, gun control laws like the other laws in the United States were created purposely to oppress black Americans especially those whose origin is in one or another way linked to Africa. Towards the end of the America civil war, all soldiers regardless of their races were given permission by the North to assemble their rifles and go home. Even those African Americans who did take part in any role during the war were also given permission to buy weapons in the North. The South after becoming losers of this war quickly adopted laws referred to as black codes in which a freedman was dictated on what he was supposed to do and not to do. One of the section of these laws restricted ownership of weapons by the civilians. African Americans were oppressed as they were not given similar gun owning rights like the whites. This led to the eruption of black panthers among other violent movements. The main objectives of these groups were forcing for equal treatment to be given to both African American and the whites (Spitzer, 2008).

As argued by Johnson, (2005), assassinations of leaders such as Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King among other several riots imposed a lot of pressure on the congress forcing the signing of an Act of 1968 specifically talking about the subject of gun control. This act greatly expanded the system of federal licensing for those dealing in guns. It in addition brought in

clarification of the kind of people not allowed to possess guns. These groups comprised of the mentally ill, the minors, illegal-drug dealers as well as people who had been found guilty of a crime recently. Federal gun control laws up to today still do not allow some groups of people to own guns. Convicted felons for instance are not allowed to either buy or possess any ammunition or a firearm. Firearms Owners Protection Act which came into place later was majorly aimed at revising certain sections of the act of 1968 thus ensuring that those in possession of guns were given adequate protection (Cothran, 2003).

Later, Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994. It prohibited the manufacture, sale, possession and even importation of “assault weapons”. Not everyone even today aggress with the classification of a firearm under the group of assault weapons. The federal law in 1994 named 19 weapons under the class of prohibited assault weapons. It in addition mentioned several hundreds of weapons that were not under the class of assault weapons. The ban of assault weapons only illegalized post-1994 assault weapons (Cothran, 2003). These brought a very large increase in the total sales recorded a year before the law of imposing a ban had started working effectively. This law in addition came with a ban on clips or magazines as they were considered as large capacity ammunition feeders. In 2004, the ban of federal assault weapons became expired. Since then, advocates have been working hard towards renewing the ban. This course of action has been motivated by the recent shooting that have been taking place in Wisconsin, Oak Creek, Colorado and Aurora. Each state

in addition to the existing federal laws has come up with its own laws in which citizens are supposed to adhere to. Up to today, conflicts are still evident between the rights of the citizens and some of the already imposed federal laws. The cause of this conflict can be traced back especially in the way some of the people interpret United States’ constitution (Cothran, 2003).

Ways in Which Gun Control Affects Second Amendment Rights of the Citizens

The second amendment done on the constitution of the US states that “Militia which is well regulated, being necessary to the safety of a state which is free, the right by the people of keeping and bearing of Arms shall not be trespassed” (Constitution of the United States). People since then have misinterpreted this law and in this way various ways of interpreting this law emerged. People who are on the side supporting the imposition of gun control laws argue that this second amendment was not meant to be directed to each individual citizen in US. It rather refers to a trained militia, military, or the law enforcement members. Those against gun control on the other hand believe that this law refers to individual citizens and thus implies that each person in the United States has the right of possessing a firearm. The words used in this second amendment have not been received clearly by the minds of the modern people. This is thus the reasons as to why they have had a conflict resulting from the meaning of this law (Johnson, 2005).

There have been questions about the meaning of the sections of “militia”, right of the people” and “keep

and bear arms”. In simpler terms, the meanings of these sections during this time might have been different from today’s interpretation. Another group of people have a belief in that those who authored the second amendment had an intention of implying that the states are supposed to ensure that militias have been maintained and that citizens in these states have to be granted permission to possess weapons in order to make use of them once they join these militias (Spitzer, 2008). In other terms, the constitution does not give a citizen the freedom of possessing a firearm in the case the citizen in question has not become part of the militia. Many advocates of the gun control policy argue that United States did not have a system of national military during the time when the second amendment was authored. This is the reason as to why citizens were allowed to own firearms as a way of defending the states. The case of today is however different. United States as at now has a well-organized system of national military. There is no reason as to why citizens should possess firearms considering the fact that they are no longer part of the team offering defense to the state (Lott, 2013).

However, the importance of a militia as a second option to a strong standing army cannot be treated with a lot of emphasis. The suspicion which has been long standing in which a standing army is taken as a danger to the freedom of the civilians has not yet changed even after the revolution. The fact that one revolution was completed does not imply that another revolution will

not take place. Citizens who are against imposition of gun control laws claim that their freedom of purchasing as well as owning firearms is under the protection of this amendment. They claim that people have the right of “bearing and keeping firearms” and not becoming part of a militia group. In other words, they claim that the amendment mentioned above is a call for citizens to purchase firearms in order to play significant roles in the militia in the case where it is needed. It however does not imply that people are supposed to be involved in the activities of a militia (Lacombe et al, 2014).

In 2008, the supreme court of the United States came up with a ruling that this amendment does give individual citizens the rights to possess weapons if only they are to be involved in lawful activities. The District of Columbia is only of the places known to have imposed very strict laws. Before this case, people were not allowed to possess firearms without having certain special certificates of registration. When a DC police officer by name Dick Heller was refused from obtaining a certificate of keeping a gun at home, he ended up filling the lawsuit. In their ruling, the supreme court made it clear that the second amendment offers protection to the rights of possessing firearms among citizens who do not play roles in the militia, and who use the acquired weapon for lawful purposes for instance self-defense whenever a person is within his/her homestead (Lott, 2013).

A research was previously conducted in fifty seven cities in US in order to determine the effects of right-to-carry-laws on the rates of

homicide. Of the states taken into consideration in this research study, some of them have “may issue” laws in place while the rest have “shall issue” laws. States having “shall issue” laws are those that will give out a permit of concealed weapons to those citizens who have met the minimum requirements based on objective grounds. “May issue” states on the other hand have a right of refusing to issue permit to a qualified person based on certain subjective grounds (Lacombe et al, 2014). The findings of this study revealed that 14 cities had “may issue” policies, 24 had policies of “shall issue”, and 7 cities had changed from “shall issue” and adopted “may issue” as the study was being conducted. The remaining twelve cities were not having a right to carry laws as the study was being conducted. These cities having different laws were taken into study in order to establish whether these laws increased, decreased or had no effect at all on the rates of homicide. After analyzing the research findings, it was established that “may issue” had an effect of reducing the rates of homicide by an approximated percentage of 20-30. “Shall issue” laws on the other hand had an effect of increasing the rates of homicide rates by percentages approximated to be the same as in “may issue” (Lacombe et al, 2014).

Summary of the Existing Policy and Potential Approaches to the Problem Identified

According to Spitzer, (2008), the problem of gun control has come along with varying views emerging from the public. The largest population in the United States have a feeling that imposing controls on the possession of guns by the

public will not serve to eradicate the problem of gun violence in the United States. Let’s for instance take into consideration an amendment in the constitution of US which stated that the government must not be defeated by either external or internal military force no matter what. Looking at a case in which all the military forces have been defeated, the only power remaining to fight and save the government will be the force of the civilians. Imposition of laws to restrict the citizens from owning guns will thus mean that the civilians in such a situation will only be left with inferior weapons for fighting in attempts to save the government. They will definitely end up losing the battle since the party they are fighting against will be strongly armed with very strongly weapons. The citizens should therefore be allowed to possess guns as they can provide a lot of assistance whenever such incidents occur (Kleck, 2009).

Those who take part in activities of murder in most cases like aiming at the soft targets. These are the groups of people who do not have the power of defending themselves when attacked. No murderer will conduct an attack in a place like the White House since the place is highly secured. He will thus be done away with before he completes his planned attack. Those attackers like killing people in places such as churches, schools, and hospitals among other soft targets. Such groups of people like shooting randomly thus killing very large numbers of people before they are killed. To some of them, acting in such a way is a way of recovering whenever they are

stressed. Assuming that all people have been allowed to possess guns, places such as schools, churches and hospitals will no longer be soft targets. The person attacking will be immediately shot dead and hence they will be no deaths of many people (Kleck, 2009).

According to Goss, (2010), the subject of imposition of gun control laws on the other hand can be a better way of controlling gun violence. Not all people can be trusted with harmful weapons such as guns. Whenever small arguments emerge, people can use guns as a way of resolving conflict. In order to avoid being defeated, a person can easily use his/her gun to shoot his/her rival. A better approach would be first educating people on the benefit of imposing gun control measures instead of forcing them to accept the imposed laws.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Gun Control Policy

Strengths

  1. Guns are very dangerous. Lots of accidents have been experienced as a result of children playing with firearms. In other times, inexperienced adults are sources of these accidents.
  2. Most of the crimes taking place today are as a result of people purchasing guns legally and then use them to conduct activities of terror.
  3. The current laws imposed on gun registration are not adequate for the enforcement of the law.
  4. Semi-automatic weapons are only meant for use in military purposes and hence the civilians are not supposed to have them no matter the use they are intending to put them into.
  5. Guns can easily fall in the hands of little children in places where they have been allowed.
  6. Protection to the democracy should not be achieved by arming the citizens but by informing

them.

  • United States’ current gun regulations have some loopholes and hence the need to strengthen them (Goss, 2010).
  • Weaknesses

    1. The second amendment was made part of the constitution because it was believed that the current laws did not provide enough protection to the citizens.
    2. Imposition of gun laws will only serve to punish only the citizens. Determined criminals will find a way of possessing guns no matter the way laws are made tougher.
    3. Imposition of gun control laws will only leave citizens on the mercies of the criminals since they will not have their personal meaning of defense.

    References

    1. Cook, P. J., Ludwig, J., & Samaha, A. M. (2008). Gun control after Heller: threats and sideshows from a social welfare perspective. UCLA L. Rev., 56, 1041.
    2. Cook, P. J., Ludwig, J., Samaha, A. M., & National Bureau of Economic Research. (2009). Gun control after Heller: Litigating against regulation. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
    3. Cothran, H. (2003). Gun control: Opposing viewpoints. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press.
    4. Goss, K. A. (2010). Disarmed: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America: The Missing Movement for Gun Control in America. Princeton University Press.
    5. Johnson, N. J. (2005). A Second Amendment Moment: The Constitutional Politics of Gun Control. Brooklyn Law Review, 71(2), 715.
    6. Kleck, G. (2009). Mass shootings in schools: The worst possible case for gun control. American Behavioral Scientist.
    7. Lacombe, D., Ross, A., Lott, J. R., & Mustard, D. B. (2014). Revisiting the question "More guns, less crime?": New estimates using spatial econometric techniques. Morgantown, W Va: West Virginia Univ., Dep. of Economics.
    8. Lott, J. R. (2013). More guns, less crime: Understanding crime and gun control laws. University of Chicago Press.
    9. Moorhouse, J. C., & Wanner, B. (2006). Does gun control

    reduce crime or does crime increase gun control. Cato J., 26, 103.

  • Spitzer, R. J. (2008). The politics of gun control. Cq Staff Directories.
  • Get an explanation on any task
    Get unstuck with the help of our AI assistant in seconds
    New