What Should government do to protesct society from mass shootings Research Paper

What Should political relation do to protesct society from mass shootings - Research Paper ExampleThe line of reasoning rages on. In recent years, the debate has become increasingly vocal, as mass shootings confound begun to invade the American landscape. Some argue that such shootings are the real reason why the temperament guarantees citizens the right field to bear arms. Others, however, argue that society has changed in the past 300 years and the time for strict gun curb has come. There are valid points to both sides and this paper will highlight some major positions, while arriving at the conclusion that the right to own and carry on a gun must remain a part of the American fabric for now and the foreseeable future. The Argument for Gun Control Individual emancipation and liberty is a cornerstone birthright that comes with being an American citizen. There are certain rights that are written into the Constitution in an effort to keep open any future government from taki ng that liberty away. As time goes on, however, and society develops, the language written into the Constitution can become muddled and alter with doubt and uncertainty. There are some, for example, that claim the right to own a gun is not actually a fundamental right guaranteed under the foster amendment. Much of this opinion involves cause and effect, and examining that actual reasoning behind the second amendment. There are multiple reasons a person ability own a gun. Some may own a gun to hunt wild game, while others will maintain a functioning weapon for purposes of self-defense. Still others might have a gun due to military or police service, and some might own a gun to commit a plague such as robbing a bank. The modern day argument in support of gun control, then, largely centers on this issue. Since the Constitution does not possibly abide the right of a gun owner to use such a weapon in the commission of a crime, then it certainly does not grant the right of every ind ividual in the country to own a gun. Guns are permitted under the second amendment for purposes of military service. Few would argue that point. Many would argue, however, that the Constitution does not inherently protect the right of gun ownership for other reasons (Stevens para. 4). The center of this debate is on the language in the Second Amendment. While it seems so clear to some, it is far from it to others. While the courts have generally upheld the principle that Americans have the right to gun ownership, there is a growing movement in government circles to have the courts take another look at the language and to issue new rulings. On this side of the issue, the opinion is that gun ownership is a right for some, but not for others. The distinction comes in the language used to write this part of the Constitution. The actual purpose governing the inclusion of the Second Amendment into the Constitution was to seize citizens to protect themselves from a well-regulated militia. In other words, if the government took away the rights of the people, the people had a right to fight back, or to defend themselves. In this vein, people have argued for gun control on the basis that gun control, and the limiting of gun ownership, is permissible under these guidelines (Faria 133). In recent years, there has been an unfortunate rise in violence on school campuses, particularly colleges and universities. Some have used this as an argument for gun ownership and the permissibility of students to be able carry guns on campus in order to better protect themselves against threats, such as mass shootings. Others, however, have argued that this is the very reason we should have gun control. By taking guns erupt of the hands of all individual citizens, they claim