“The right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” states the second amendment. Recently gun control laws are becoming strict and evasive; therefore, others have stood up to protect their basic human rights. Those who are pro-gun control believe the fact that guns are the main reason for so many homicides, suicides, and misfires when in reality it is rather the person behind the trigger. Guns are provided for protection because the police are not always there for the general public. In addition, police need weapons such as guns because their job can become extremely fatal if they are not armed with artilleries. Therefore, abolishing the second amendment is erratic to the preservation of our forefathers who authorized the law to protect its citizens.
Guns are essential to our citizen’s protection and well-being. There are numerous encounters of almost every day occurrences of home invasions that police cannot always tend to when called. Therefore, the average individual would have to fend for themselves; in addition a gun in their possession would be a reliable resource for these specific confrontations. Recently, a 90 year old man living alone scared a burglar off by firing his .357 magnum revolver in the direction the perpetrator was trying to invade. Even though prior to shooting, he called police due to suspicions they did not respond as quickly as the events were escalating. Ultimately the elderly man had to take matters into this own hands and shoot in the suspects direction in order to scare him off. If this man did not have a gun within his possession, countless of deadly alternatives could have materialized. Even though the police eventually arrived, all was well and nothing drastic ensued during the aftermath. Another tragic event transpired with the Beber foster parents “back in April the couple awakened to the sound of screaming on their property. …show more content…
Rod reacted by retrieving a handgun, as Kristi called 9-1-1. Police quelled the situation (NRA).” This resolved in the parents getting their fostering license away because the law considered which allowed foster parents in possession of a gun and allowed to be held within the presence in front of the child if there is a holster involved was not exercised yet. Furthermore, this disrupts the second amendment for the right of a residency to retain a hand held gun in their tenure. Consequently, while citizens are constantly in danger for their health and safety, gun provision halt them to procure their right to welfare. Conversely not only do inhabitants face the struggle to obtain a gun, police forces are progressively losing their right to hold a gun on the field. Debates on whether armed police force is excessive and campus police should require guns on their daily duties fuel the fire of the discussion on if we need police to be armed on their job. The president of Florida State University, Mr. Thrasher has stated a couple of months ago that he is in favor of taking away the guns of the campus officers, thus, making the campus a gun free zone. When the public got word of this statement, they investigated his previous statement to find that he has been indecisive for the past five years. Most believe Thrasher was influenced by lobbyists. However, the consequences without armed
Guns are essential to our citizen’s protection and well-being. There are numerous encounters of almost every day occurrences of home invasions that police cannot always tend to when called. Therefore, the average individual would have to fend for themselves; in addition a gun in their possession would be a reliable resource for these specific confrontations. Recently, a 90 year old man living alone scared a burglar off by firing his .357 magnum revolver in the direction the perpetrator was trying to invade. Even though prior to shooting, he called police due to suspicions they did not respond as quickly as the events were escalating. Ultimately the elderly man had to take matters into this own hands and shoot in the suspects direction in order to scare him off. If this man did not have a gun within his possession, countless of deadly alternatives could have materialized. Even though the police eventually arrived, all was well and nothing drastic ensued during the aftermath. Another tragic event transpired with the Beber foster parents “back in April the couple awakened to the sound of screaming on their property. …show more content…
Rod reacted by retrieving a handgun, as Kristi called 9-1-1. Police quelled the situation (NRA).” This resolved in the parents getting their fostering license away because the law considered which allowed foster parents in possession of a gun and allowed to be held within the presence in front of the child if there is a holster involved was not exercised yet. Furthermore, this disrupts the second amendment for the right of a residency to retain a hand held gun in their tenure. Consequently, while citizens are constantly in danger for their health and safety, gun provision halt them to procure their right to welfare. Conversely not only do inhabitants face the struggle to obtain a gun, police forces are progressively losing their right to hold a gun on the field. Debates on whether armed police force is excessive and campus police should require guns on their daily duties fuel the fire of the discussion on if we need police to be armed on their job. The president of Florida State University, Mr. Thrasher has stated a couple of months ago that he is in favor of taking away the guns of the campus officers, thus, making the campus a gun free zone. When the public got word of this statement, they investigated his previous statement to find that he has been indecisive for the past five years. Most believe Thrasher was influenced by lobbyists. However, the consequences without armed