 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
|
Wonder Free College Term Papers Essays & Research Papers provides term papers in all formats including APA, MLA
and CHICAGO / TURABIAN styles. Below is a sample term paper named "The
Right To Bear Arms ". Click on the desired style in which
you want to view the paper.
Sample " The Right To Bear Arms " ( MLA format ) Sample
" The Right To Bear Arms " ( Chicago
/ Turabian format ) The Right to Bear Arms Henry Peter AB School of Sciences The Right To Bear Arms "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." Second Amendment. Irrespective of all arguments relating to the syntax of the above, the fact remains that per se the amendment guarantees the continuity (Gun Week September1991) of the right to keep and bear arms of the people. The question is whether today's world can accommodate this 200 year old article whose amendment requires two-third majority of each house and three-fourth of the states; whose amendment process can be stymied by as little as 4.5% of the US population. It is essential to understand that the constitution is not etched in stone and can be subject to, if not serious flaws of formation, then with flaws of age and surrogate error. With the advent of technology and formulation of automatic weapons, the US Government has prohibited sales and ownership of such since 1934. In 1993 the Brady Bill was passed resulting in a very obvious Show-Gun Loophole. Again in 1994 an act was passed resulting in prohibition of weapons within a said radius of schools and government buildings. Still further acts of installing safety features in guns to prevent tragedies of minors and to keep the gun under lock and key have been points of controversy. Experience and reason dictate that laissez faire and totalitarian rules are equally harmful and fine boundaries need be drawn to fully capture the essence of democracy. Proponents of further gun control argue that with fewer guns violence will decrease. Tragedies involving minors will reduce and we will have a safer place to live. The argument is akin to saying that with fewer swords or with fewer arrows violence will decrease. Violence is not a function of the weapon. It is a result of temporary and/or permanent state of mind. A gun can trigger violence no more than a knife or a sword or an arrow can. In an average year five times as many children die in bathtubs than they do in gun related violence but whoever heard of the "Bathtubs Control Act?" Criminals are those who do not obey laws. Irrespective of what law exists in the country they will continue to obtain weapons, if not through legal channels then through illegal ones. Currently background checks are required for issuing a gun. As much as each act of violence stands on its own, such a check at least provides us with some little assurance of who has the guns. Predominantly criminals use handguns for violence. If the police that is at a dismal statistic (Reynolds) of one policeperson per 3000 plus civilians is not available what are those fired upon to do? If guns are to be completely eliminated (Sullum January 2000) from the society then control laws are surely the slowest means of doing so. Those who advocate strict gun control laws refer to the increasing murder rate over the last two decades attributing this trend to the increase in the private ownership of arms. Kates (1979) refers to it. … the causal connection here is not that more handguns have resulted in more violence but that more violence by the kind of disturbed, aberrant people who commit murders (and by the equally aberrant, but much less disturbed, people who commit robbery, burglary, etc.) has caused law-abiding citizens to buy handguns in self-defense…… and it cannot be reduced by handgun bans because these people-who won't obey a law against murder-aren't going to obey a law against owning handguns. (90) For all crimes that are committed stricter laws will be passed. Those who abide by them will suffer the hardships. Those who will not will continue to do as before. Nothing can justify tragedies like that of Columbian High School, April 20, 1999, resulting in deaths of thirteen students. But isn't the cause of such tragedy deeper than the presence of guns? Shouldn't the circumstances that lead to such acts of violence be investigated just as adroitly as the gun control laws are lobbied? What is required is enforcement of the existing laws and plugging of loopholes before passing of newer ones. Until and unless complete guarantee of the lives of the civilians can be ensured, which surprisingly is exactly what the constitution states it is not responsible for; stricter and stricter laws will continue to penalize law-abiding citizens. References Gun Week. (Sept 13, 1991). Retrieved from the World Wide Web on May 02, 2001. (http://www.cphv.com/art2ndint.htm) Kates, Don B., Jr. (July 1979). "Gun Control: The Real Facts." Field and Stream: 90 Reynolds, Morgon O. Myths about gun controls. Retrieved fro the World Wide Web on May 02, 2001. (http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s176/s176.html). Sullum, Jacob. (January 2000). "Cold Comfort". Reason Online
|
|||||
|
||
