“Then we heard pop-pop-pop, pop-pop-pop, and I thought, ‘That's a weird noise’. I first thought it was the janitor taking down risers and setting up tables. The school's intercom was on, and [I] next heard more shots, screaming, crying and whimpering. [I] heard the janitor yell at the gunman, "'Put the gun down! Put the gun down'"(Sgueglia), this was an account from Shari Thornberg, a staff member at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in an interview with USA Today. On December 14, it will mark the third anniversary where twenty children and six adults were brutally murdered by bullets from a rapid fire assault weapon that was mishandled by a mentally confused man. Rapid-firing assault weapons should be banned from the hands of citizens across the
…show more content…
These lethal weaponries pose a concern to public welfare, a higher possibility of a massacre arising, and a threat to the future of many Americans. Those who oppose may say that it violates the second amendment. The Constitution states that, “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”. The Founding Fathers made the second amendment to allow the citizens of the United States of America; however, this policy should not apply to rapid fire assault weapons. Before going further, what are rapid fire assault weapons? These rapid fire assault weapons are defined by: “There are fully automatic weapons, which fire continuously when the trigger is held down” (Pulmer). This should only …show more content…
With citizens that own these weapons, there is a higher risk of domestic terrorism. Nonetheless, without the possession of these harmful articles, these organizations could focus their time efficiently towards other difficulties in society. Moreover, if the assault weapons were expelled, these protection agencies could pursue after owners instead of having to observe civilian movement. This would decrease the anxiety from the intent of the owners, and increase the security of the United States of America. Having police officers and criminals with high powered weapons is going to cause instability and countless unneeded deaths. People who oppose the ban may say that this restricts privacy and independence. This statement states: “Legalized high-powered weaponry forces public safety agencies, mainly the FBI, to attempt to monitor more civilian activity” (Matthews). Owning a firearm is a way of independence as well as privacy; however, removing assault weapons from citizen’s hands is not restricting individuality. Citizens are still allowed handguns and other hand held weapon. With the FBI attentive mainly on domestic matters, this creates a focus primarily on the little issues. Owning a rapid-fire assault weapon poses a risk to the well-being of those who are meant to protect people in their
These lethal weaponries pose a concern to public welfare, a higher possibility of a massacre arising, and a threat to the future of many Americans. Those who oppose may say that it violates the second amendment. The Constitution states that, “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”. The Founding Fathers made the second amendment to allow the citizens of the United States of America; however, this policy should not apply to rapid fire assault weapons. Before going further, what are rapid fire assault weapons? These rapid fire assault weapons are defined by: “There are fully automatic weapons, which fire continuously when the trigger is held down” (Pulmer). This should only …show more content…
With citizens that own these weapons, there is a higher risk of domestic terrorism. Nonetheless, without the possession of these harmful articles, these organizations could focus their time efficiently towards other difficulties in society. Moreover, if the assault weapons were expelled, these protection agencies could pursue after owners instead of having to observe civilian movement. This would decrease the anxiety from the intent of the owners, and increase the security of the United States of America. Having police officers and criminals with high powered weapons is going to cause instability and countless unneeded deaths. People who oppose the ban may say that this restricts privacy and independence. This statement states: “Legalized high-powered weaponry forces public safety agencies, mainly the FBI, to attempt to monitor more civilian activity” (Matthews). Owning a firearm is a way of independence as well as privacy; however, removing assault weapons from citizen’s hands is not restricting individuality. Citizens are still allowed handguns and other hand held weapon. With the FBI attentive mainly on domestic matters, this creates a focus primarily on the little issues. Owning a rapid-fire assault weapon poses a risk to the well-being of those who are meant to protect people in their