The Constitution: Suppression of the 2nd Amendment
“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 infringed.” This is the 2nd amendment, and it is under attack. Many people believe that guns are evil and need to banned from the general public. They look at countries such as Australia, Japan, and France to get there reasoning for strict gun control. Advocates for this type of thinking conclude that if America implements the same harsh gun regulations of other countries, then our gun violence rates will reflect theirs. It makes sense, if it works there, then why wouldn’t it work here? The answer to this question is simple, they are not America. The Constitution …show more content…
Immediately after being ratified, changes to the Constitution were made. The 1st amendment assured the people that their most basic rights could not be taken. The 2nd amendment guaranteed that the people would be able to own and keep their firearms. If the founding fathers thought this was second only to free speech, they must have thought that it was pretty important. George Mason, co-author of the 2nd amendment said that “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” If a governing body is able to take away the guns of its people, there is nothing that the people can do to stop the government from taking over. Whereas, if the people are armed with the same type of weapons as the government, it would be a lot harder for the government to take over. The key phrase being, “same type of weapons.” The main weapon referred to are the AR-15s. Since they are military style weapons, a lot of people think they should not be legal for private ownership. There was a temporary ban on AR-15s, as well as many other military style weapons, including high-capacity magazines (chambers or belts that are able to feed more than 10 rounds of ammunition into a firearm), but guns and …show more content…
Before the 1994 assault weapons ban there was no such thing as an assault shotgun or assault pistol. The law essentially did the same thing pistols as it did for rifles. Pre ban there were machine pistols, but they were already highly restricted. The ban just changed the name to assault pistols and broadened the definition to include semi-automatics with two or more of the following features that also accept detachable magazines: threaded barrel, barrel shroud, an unloaded weight of 50oz, a semi-automatic version of fully automatic pistol, or a magazine that isn’t inserted through the grip. These features just don’t make any sense. Sure the threaded barrel and barrel shroud goes along with the rifle, but what does it matter if it weighs more than 50oz? And who cares if the magazine attaches outside the grip-handle? All of these are just ways to target a larger area of guns. But it did the same thing for shotguns as well. The shotgun is different because the law didn’t really expand on its definition, it just changed the name. Before the law there were tactical shotguns that were completely legal; after the law there were assault shotguns that fell under the prohibited side of the ban. The definition it gave was semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following features: folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, or detachable magazine. All of those
“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 infringed.” This is the 2nd amendment, and it is under attack. Many people believe that guns are evil and need to banned from the general public. They look at countries such as Australia, Japan, and France to get there reasoning for strict gun control. Advocates for this type of thinking conclude that if America implements the same harsh gun regulations of other countries, then our gun violence rates will reflect theirs. It makes sense, if it works there, then why wouldn’t it work here? The answer to this question is simple, they are not America. The Constitution …show more content…
Immediately after being ratified, changes to the Constitution were made. The 1st amendment assured the people that their most basic rights could not be taken. The 2nd amendment guaranteed that the people would be able to own and keep their firearms. If the founding fathers thought this was second only to free speech, they must have thought that it was pretty important. George Mason, co-author of the 2nd amendment said that “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” If a governing body is able to take away the guns of its people, there is nothing that the people can do to stop the government from taking over. Whereas, if the people are armed with the same type of weapons as the government, it would be a lot harder for the government to take over. The key phrase being, “same type of weapons.” The main weapon referred to are the AR-15s. Since they are military style weapons, a lot of people think they should not be legal for private ownership. There was a temporary ban on AR-15s, as well as many other military style weapons, including high-capacity magazines (chambers or belts that are able to feed more than 10 rounds of ammunition into a firearm), but guns and …show more content…
Before the 1994 assault weapons ban there was no such thing as an assault shotgun or assault pistol. The law essentially did the same thing pistols as it did for rifles. Pre ban there were machine pistols, but they were already highly restricted. The ban just changed the name to assault pistols and broadened the definition to include semi-automatics with two or more of the following features that also accept detachable magazines: threaded barrel, barrel shroud, an unloaded weight of 50oz, a semi-automatic version of fully automatic pistol, or a magazine that isn’t inserted through the grip. These features just don’t make any sense. Sure the threaded barrel and barrel shroud goes along with the rifle, but what does it matter if it weighs more than 50oz? And who cares if the magazine attaches outside the grip-handle? All of these are just ways to target a larger area of guns. But it did the same thing for shotguns as well. The shotgun is different because the law didn’t really expand on its definition, it just changed the name. Before the law there were tactical shotguns that were completely legal; after the law there were assault shotguns that fell under the prohibited side of the ban. The definition it gave was semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following features: folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, or detachable magazine. All of those