Pnnp
Research paper gun control notes
6 cons:
1) If a criminal really wanted a gun, they could get it illegally, and then the only thing the control does is not allow the law abiding citizen from having one to protect himself and his family.
2) The second ammendment clearly states that the right to bear arms and have a militia shall not be infringed.
3) The Framers wanted their to be armed citizens to protect themselves from a tyranny, because the americans, when they felt like the brits were a terreny, revolted against them, and what do you know? we have our nation.
4) This is a quote, but a good one "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
Thats all I could think of at the moment, hope it helps
Source(s):
there are no pros to gun control, other than take away rights to the people, which is exactly what the framers of the constitution didnt want to happen
cons: take away citizens right to bear arms, punish innocent people, the ones committing the violence will still get guns so it wouldn't help, non effective, black market, controlled hunting would be gone and there will be overpopulation of animals
Stricter gun control laws will lead to a much more control of the private individual by the governments at all levels.
Stricter gun control laws will open new economic opportunities for the economic sub cultures know as neighbor hood associations because of a major increase in income from the illegal importation and sale of guns.
A lot of sarcasm there, Gun control laws have never been a good thing! The Nazi's in pre-WWII used it as did the Fascists in Italy prior to their seizure of complete power. I must say that both parties were voted into power by the voters and the Fascist government was later overthrown. The Gestapo did not allow that to happen in Germany.
I wish to state that I completely disagree with gun control, but I want to help you.
1) You can use the argument that the 2nd
6 cons:
1) If a criminal really wanted a gun, they could get it illegally, and then the only thing the control does is not allow the law abiding citizen from having one to protect himself and his family.
2) The second ammendment clearly states that the right to bear arms and have a militia shall not be infringed.
3) The Framers wanted their to be armed citizens to protect themselves from a tyranny, because the americans, when they felt like the brits were a terreny, revolted against them, and what do you know? we have our nation.
4) This is a quote, but a good one "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
Thats all I could think of at the moment, hope it helps
Source(s):
there are no pros to gun control, other than take away rights to the people, which is exactly what the framers of the constitution didnt want to happen
cons: take away citizens right to bear arms, punish innocent people, the ones committing the violence will still get guns so it wouldn't help, non effective, black market, controlled hunting would be gone and there will be overpopulation of animals
Stricter gun control laws will lead to a much more control of the private individual by the governments at all levels.
Stricter gun control laws will open new economic opportunities for the economic sub cultures know as neighbor hood associations because of a major increase in income from the illegal importation and sale of guns.
A lot of sarcasm there, Gun control laws have never been a good thing! The Nazi's in pre-WWII used it as did the Fascists in Italy prior to their seizure of complete power. I must say that both parties were voted into power by the voters and the Fascist government was later overthrown. The Gestapo did not allow that to happen in Germany.
I wish to state that I completely disagree with gun control, but I want to help you.
1) You can use the argument that the 2nd