Analysis Of Ed Get A Knife, Get A Dog But Get Rid Of Guns

1795 Words 8 Pages
In her Op-Ed Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns, Molly Ivins expresses her opinion on gun regulation in the United States. She asserts that the Second Amendment is misunderstood (Ivins 324), and infers that this inhibits the improvement of stricter gun laws. Ivins feels that people who are permitted to possess guns should at least be well trained and have a lot of discipline because guns are very powerful. People who want to own guns, she feels, are obsessed with having the power to kill and she proposes to completely ban guns from the citizens of the United States. While it is true that anyone in the possession of a gun should have competent training and respect for the weapon, representatives of the people and the United States as …show more content…
During the late 18th and through the 19th century (and even today) in America the word militia is meant as a small army made up of citizens, not necessarily trained in any professional manner. The citizens of the nation are what the founding fathers knew to be necessary for the security of a free state. We today are not able to know Thomas Jefferson’s dearest wishes because he is not alive, but we can read the writings that he, as well as the other founding fathers like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote, and use them to have a clearer picture of their ideals opposed to just using one bit of text and construing it to mean whatever we want. For instance, the Federalist Papers, which were meant to support the Constitution, say on a couple of occasions that citizens should be prepared to stand alongside the army in order to defend others and the freedom of their state. The founding fathers were not against gun ownership in anyway, but instead encouraged every household to own guns for defense. If, theoretically, we could speak with some of the founding fathers today, they would be appalled at the thought of the government strictly or in any way inhibiting legal gun ownership by …show more content…
I don’t have any license to conceal and carry, and have only shot a gun on a couple of occasions. And there should be restrictions on guns. Criminals should not be able to legally obtain a gun. They surrendered their rights once they broke the law. Background checks should be performed so guns are not given away to just anyone that asks for one. If these restrictions are in place, then I do not see where more restrictions should come in. Furthermore, instituting more restrictions would not significantly impact the violence and criminal activity facilitated by gun use. Take Mexico as an example. In the whole country of Mexico, there is one place to legally obtain a gun. You have to go through a lot of paper work and have to pass a background check done to be eligible to buy one. And you can only have one gun. This is clearly a very restrictive policy, yet there is so much violence pertaining to gangs and illegal drug cartels that is immensely possible with gun possession, much more violence than in the United

Related Documents