What Should government do to protesct society from mass shootings Research Paper

What Should government do to protesct society from big bucks shootings - Research Paper ExampleThe debate rages on. In recent long time, the debate has become increasingly vocal, as mass shootings countenance begun to invade the American landscape. Some argue that such shootings are the very effort why the theme guarantees citizens the office to bear arms. Others, however, argue that society has changed in the past 300 years and the time for strict gun control has come. There are valid points to both sides and this paper depart highlight some major positions, while arriving at the conclusion that the right to bear and maintain a gun must remain a part of the American fabric for now and the foreseeable future. The arguing for Gun Control Individual freedom and liberty is a cornerstone birthright that comes with being an American citizen. There are certain rights that are written into the Constitution in an effort to prevent both future government from taking that liberty away . As time goes on, however, and society develops, the terminology written into the Constitution can become muddled and filled with doubt and uncertainty. There are some, for example, that claim the right to induce a gun is not actually a fundamental right guaranteed under the second amendment. a lot of this assurance involves cause and effect, and examining that actual reasoning behind the second amendment. There are multiple reasons a person might own a gun. Some may own a gun to escape wild game, while others will maintain a functioning weapon for purposes of self-defense. Still others might affirm a gun due to military or police service, and some might own a gun to commit a crime such as robbing a bank. The modern day line of credit in support of gun control, then, largely centers on this issue. Since the Constitution does not possibly permit the right of a gun owner to use such a weapon in the commission of a crime, then it certainly does not permit the right of every ind ividual in the country to own a gun. Guns are permitted under the second amendment for purposes of military service. Few would argue that point. Many would argue, however, that the Constitution does not inherently harbor the right of gun willpower for other reasons (Stevens para. 4). The center of this debate is on the language in the Second Amendment. While it seems so clear to some, it is far from it to others. While the courts have generally upheld the rule that Americans have the right to gun ownership, there is a growing movement in government circles to have the courts take another look at the language and to issue new rulings. On this side of the issue, the opinion is that gun ownership is a right for some, but not for others. The distinction comes in the language use to write this part of the Constitution. The actual purpose governing the inclusion of the Second Amendment into the Constitution was to allow citizens to protect themselves from a well-regulated militia. In o ther words, if the government took away the rights of the people, the people had a right to fight back, or to defend themselves. In this vein, people have argued for gun control on the basis that gun control, and the close of gun ownership, is permissible under these guidelines (Faria 133). In recent years, there has been an unfortunate rise in craze on school campuses, particularly colleges and universities. Some have used this as an argument for gun ownership and the permissibility of students to be able carry guns on campus in order to better protect themselves against threats, such as mass shootings. Others, however, have argued that this is the very reason we should have gun control. By taking guns out of the pass of all individual citizens, they claim