Ban on Assault Rifles and Second Amendment - Research Paper Example

Does a ban on Assault Rifles Infringe on the Second Amendment? Outline Thesis ment: While the claim that banning assault rifles is considered an infringement to the second amendment, reasons to possess it are no doubt unsubstantiated. I. Introduction II. Why there should be a Ban on Rifles and other Guns III. How does the Ban of Rifles affect the Second Amendment IV. The Goal of the Ban V. Conclusion VI. Works Cited Introduction The debate on gun control in United States has now reached its maximum point. So many people have died and children have not been spared either. Most of the victims may be lucky to be taken to the hospital, but in most cases, they die immediately. Now that the occurrence of tragedy after tragedy seems to be the new trend, this is now the most appropriate time to discuss the issue of gun use in America, more specifically, among the civilians. The recent ban on assault rifle by the president is encouraging and shows that perhaps things may soon turn out well. However, critics are now stating that the ban is likely to infringe on the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment Stipulates that people should have a right to bear arms which should not be infringed. According to Charles, the Second Amendment is a right that shall not be infringed (8). Charles indicates that most people interpret the statement as one that should not be changed and view it as a right (8). Years ago, in 1940s and 1950s, guns were deemed as a legal way of the elite protecting their families, or in a position to secure themselves from thieves and wanted criminals. However, today people depend on the police and the army for defense, raising the question as to whether people need these guns anymore. Why there should be a Ban on Rifles and other Guns A ban on the rifles would be helpful to the safety agencies when it comes to rooting out all the terror threats that civilians may receive on a domestic level. It would be easier to have the agencies getting this issue under control with the existence of a ban. This is because instead of the agencies worrying about how the assault rifle owners are likely to react or behave, they are likely to put more effort and save time while controlling the issue. In addition, the individual privacy of American would be on the increase as much as their security is likely to increase. Unwarranted searches in people’s homes and gun violence would decrease drastically. Contrary to what most civilians assume, the Second Amendment only applies to active duty personnel who are in the militia (Alters 46). This therefore means that the proponents who usually argue that banning the assault rifles violates the rights as stipulated in the Second Amendment are wrong. There are also the critics who argue that laws controlling guns are only there as a restriction on the freedom of Americans. There are also those who argue out that such aggressive ban rules are likely to result to an increase of trade in the black market and therefore have a negative impact. These are some of the arguments that most critics present and have little weight on the main goal of maintaining the security of people and saving human lives. All guns, whether rifles or hand guns present clear problems to the society and this outweighs the issue of human freedom or the black market. When the right to life is threatened, the right to freedom can no longer be said to be effective. A person who is threatened with the possibility of crossing paths with a mentally ill person with a gun is likely to lose his or her right to live and therefore will not be in a position to enjoy freedom rights. There are laws that have been enacted over the years to regulate the use of firearms but do not seem to work (Alters 45). It is not shocking to know that assault rifles are involved in homicides as well since in most cases they can fire automatically. If there are laws controlling gun possession, then this means that safety agencies are twice likely to monitor the activity of civilians as compared to if the guns were banned. Monitoring of civilian activity more closely affects the average American’s right of freedom and privacy. Hence, it is evident that whether there is a ban on rifles or other guns is carried out or not, in both cases the right of individual freedom is affected. Legalizing the guns or rifles would mean that the safety agencies would have the right to do an extensive research in a person’s home, whether the gun was purchased legally or not. However, it is wiser to choose the path with fewer disadvantages, which is supporting the ban on rifles. A ban on rifles only affects the freedom of some individuals who are active in the militia and not civilians; therefore, it is my opinion that the freedom of civilians cannot be affected as much as that of an active member of the militia. How does the Ban of Rifles affect the Second Amendment The Second Amendment is one of the key amendments in the constitution, among the Bill of rights. According to Massaro, the Second Amendment has everything to do with law and not based on public policy (6). This means that it has to be interpreted correctly by the public members of the society. He argues out that the law in the Second Amendment means exactly as it is in the Constitution (10). Most experts and authors such as Massaro argue that gun control like the ban on rifles is highly unlikely to be successful because it infringes on the Second Amendment. This coupled with the fact that recently the court ruling in United States strengthened the Second Amendment proves that introducing more gun control measures is likely to be extremely difficult. However, if the gun control measures are renewed, it will be the most appropriate approach to prevent an increase in gun violence. Of course, the ban does not mean that there will be an instant change of things that is gun violence. Use of education efforts in schools, from elementary to Universities is also likely to provide good results. Coming up with new techniques to treat those with mental challenges and also how to identify them before they cause harm is also fundamental. Banning the rifles is one step closer to solving the issue of homicide, terrorism among so many other forms of gun violence. This is a measure taken to secure the personal liberties of every individual in United States. In Jamie Lucier’s book America's Guns and the Second Amendment, (2007), a ban on guns may face serious criticisms from the gun owners (8). According to Lucier, gun store owners store their guns well in a way that is not likely to result to harm (9). The function of assault rifles in America is only functional, according to some of the critics of the ban. From different statistics given annually by some of the safety agencies, around 67% of those who own firearms carry then for the purpose of protection, whereas others carry them for the purpose of hunting and target shooting. He argues out that most gun owners are usually normal people who have normal lifestyles; therefore they should not be treated as people who are a threat to the society (12). Perhaps the most convincing argument from some of the critics would be that assault rifles are not used as much as hand guns and hence the ban on rifles is not likely to fully solve the problem of gun violence. From the research conducted on different people the most common opinions are that most violence takes place by use of hand guns and only a small percentage of people use rifles. The reasons given by most people were that rifles are very bulky and can easily be seen. Therefore, in my opinion, a ban on rifles should be encouraged, but the government should also remember that rifles are not the only guns used to commit crimes. In Stephen Halbrook’s book The Founders' Second Amendment (2012), recent years have contributed to a change in the way people now view the right to bear arms. He proves that people have stopped viewing the Second Amendment as only a law that favors the militia (14). He wants his readers to question whether the power to bear arms is legally in the hand of individuals or the government (15). The author among other authors argue that a ban on manufacturing and the sale of rifles is likely to have some positive effects on states such as those located in Central America. These are just some of the states where people are massacred because the criminals had the chance of buying the rifles from willing sellers in America. The Goal of the Ban The key goal of this ban is to reduce the rate at which people and more so the civilians use the assault weapons. Guns such as rifles are not designed to be handled by civilians and therefore the reason why they create a higher potential of people committing violence. A decrease of people who possess these weapons is one of the ways of avoiding or preventing further damage. The fact is that this is not a method that is likely to completely make it hard for criminals to have access to the weapons. Despite the ban, criminals are still likely to find other means by which they can gain access of the weapons (Reynolds 20). If the rifles or other weapons were to be legalized because of the argument that criminals will always look for other ways to get weapons has no solid ground. The government or the Second Amendment law is not in any way justified to allow anyone to possess such weapons. The aim is therefore based on reducing the weapons in the society and also reducing those that criminals have access to. Criminalizing the whole process of individuals possessing such weapons is likely to reduce the supply where as aforementioned, most criminals get the weapons. In addition this, it creates a reduced risk of people committing any problems related to gun violence. The facts are that the supply and demand of the black market will always cause the prices to either increase or decrease. An increase is always likely to deter the criminals from having or getting the weapons (Halbrook 16). A decrease is likely to lead to an increased purchasing trend among the criminals for weapons, which therefore translates to more assaults and gun violence. Therefore, rather than trying so hard to stop the violence which may occur away from the public eye, it is easier to ban rifles, which are used in gun violence. Getting an assault rifle which is legal is far much easier than acquiring one that is banned. This proves that the goal is a successful one. Conclusion As aforementioned in the discussion, there are no reasons that can be given which warrant the average citizen in United States to have access to weapons such as rifles. These are mostly meant for use in the military and should not be used by the average American for recreational activities or in self defense. The danger that comes with being in possession of such weapons outweighs the other issues that critics in this discussion have presented. The Second Amendment applies to those who are in the militia and hence can be infringed if they are banned from using rifles when at war. The design of most rifles is that of military purpose and hence likely to cause so many casualties among the civilians. Works Cited Alters, Sandra. Gun Control: Restricting Rights or Protecting People? Detroit, Mich: Thomson Gale, 2007. Print. Charles, Patrick J. The Second Amendment: The Intent and Its Interpretation by the States and the Supreme Court. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Co, 2009. Print. Halbrook, Stephen P. The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2012. Print. Halbrook, Stephen P. That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right. 2013. Print. Lucier, Jamie. America's Guns and the Second Amendment: A Momentous Decision by the United States. S.l.: Authorhouse, 2009. Print. Massaro, John. No Guarantee of a Gun: How and Why the Second Amendment Means Exactly What It Says. Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse, 2009. Print. Reynolds, Jack. A People Armed and Free: The Truth about the Second Amendment. Bloomington, IN: 1st Books, 2003. Print. Read More