Persuasive Essay On Gun Law

In many countries nowadays, the government tends to favor the overall well-being of their country over the rights and freedom of its individual citizens. These governments enact tight legislation to lower the crime rate, while limiting the individual person’s rights and freedom. Their philosophy is that people with more individual freedom are able to and therefore usually commit more crime than people who have less freedom. However, there is a thin line between laws that are based on common sense and laws that infringe on the necessary rights of the individual. This line is crossed by the government and politicians who aim to control one of the most fundamental rights of an individual, the right to keep and bear arms, with certain laws and
regulations. Gun control legislation should not be put into place because it would violate the US Constitution, hinder the ability of self-defense, and disempower the people if their government became tyrannical. First of all, gun control laws should not be enacted because such legislation infringes on the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, which ensures that the American people have the right to own and use firearms. The amendment is as follows: "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." Throughout the history of the United States, the meaning of the Second Amendment has been debated amongst politicians and the Supreme Court justices due to its confusing wording. Some people argue that, in the Second Amendment, “the people” refers to a state regulated militia, therefore not protecting the individual citizen’s gun rights. However, the usage of “the people” in other amendments to the Bill of Rights show that “the people” refers to the citizens and not to a government militia. These amendments that use “the people” to describe the citizens and not the state include the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and specifically the 10th amendment, which reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Notice how “the states” and “the people” are not interchangeable; the amendment says that the powers not given to the federal government by the Constitution are either given to the state governments or the people. Therefore, “the people” refers to the citizens and not to the government, which means that the Second Amendment ensures the citizens’ right to keep and bear firearms. Gun control laws should not be implemented because they infringe on people’s gun rights and violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Furthermore, gun control laws weaken the American citizen’s ability to defend themselves, and therefore should not be legislated. A commonly used or proposed method of gun control is banning a specific type of firearm. Many of these gun laws ban specific attachments that make the firearms easier to handle and more convenient. For example, many politicians in America want to ban assault weapons in the US, which include semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip, and sometimes other features such as a barrel shroud or flash suppressor. They view these firearms as unfit or unnecessary for US citizens to own even though such attachments make the firearm only slightly more dangerous than the weapon with no such attachments. Another example of a weapons ban was when the city of Chicago instituted a law that prevented civilians from possessing handguns except for those that were registered prior to the law (JustFacts). The ban, which remained in place from 1982 to 2010, also required gun owners to re-register their handguns every two years or have them confiscated (JustFacts). This law, besides being unconstitutional, was ineffective at lowering the murder rate (JustFacts). By making a certain type of gun illegal to own and use, law-abiding citizens would be prevented from having them whereas criminals, who do not follow the law, would be able to attain such guns through an illegal source. As a result, the “playing field” of gun self-defense between criminals and law-abiding citizens would be unfair; the lawful gun owners would not possess the firearms as strong as the criminals’ firearms. Therefore, the crime rate would stay relatively the same because the criminals would still have access to the guns. Because these firearm bans would hinder law-abiding gun owners’ capability to defend themselves against criminals, these gun bans should not be set as the law. Moreover, restrictive gun laws should not be proposed or passed because the limitations on the civilians’ guns would disable them from defending themselves against a tyrannical government.
A member of the Constitutional Convention, George Mason, once said that “The best and most effectual way to enslave the people is to disarm them.” This quote is not merely a product of George Mason’s opinion; his claim is backed by examples of a disarmed population being enslaved by their government in the past. For example, in 1938, Hitler of the Nazi party made a law prohibiting Jews from keeping or bearing firearms. By taking the Jews’ guns, the Jews had no effective way to defend themselves from being killed or sent to concentration camps by the Nazis. Despite previous examples in the past, some people question the importance of having the ability to defend against the government. These people say that it would be impossible for the civilians to overthrow the government of countries such as the US because the government and its military have technology far more advanced than the civilians’ technology. Even though there would be a slim chance of a successful revolution, it is always better to have a fighting chance. Without the proper firearms such as more advanced assault rifles, civilians of a tyrannical government would be defeated much sooner than the unarmed citizens. Since laws banning and limiting firearms would stop civilians from successfully overthrowing an oppressive government, such laws should not be
enacted. Ultimately, legislation banning or restricting guns should not be enacted because it would infringe on the United States Constitution, restrain civilians’ capability to defend themselves, and prevent civilians from overthrowing an unjust government. All of these abilities are rights of the individual; without the right to carry, the individual’s freedom is limited. If these gun laws are enacted, then these rights and abilities will be taken from the people. When someone is restricted, that person’s individuality dims, and eventually, if it is limited enough, the light of the individual will be extinguished. Before it’s too late and the people are disarmed of their rights, citizens must take action. To prevent gun laws from being passed, vote for politicians for gun rights and spread the truth about gun control.