GUN CONTROL OR NOT?
Imagine today, somebody or government came into your town and started taking possession of all your personal fire
arms. Just so they could keep you under their control. What would you think or do about this? In the summer of
1768, the British army tried to disarm the new residents of Boston. This process went on until the end of 1775. This
took place so that the King of England would not have his invincible army revolted against in the new land to the
West. The bostonians of the new west were resisting taxation and other various grievances resulting in riots.
(Halbrook, 1) Therefore causing the disarming of the residents of boston. In 1791 the adoption of the Second
Amendment to the Bill of Rights was ratified by all of the 13 colonies after the Constitution ratification. (HalBrook,
XI) This Second Amendment gave all citizens of the colonies to bear arms. Wether you are for or against gun
control this is a long on going battle that has no end in the near future.
In the Second Article to the Bill of Rights states; "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
(HalBrook, VIII) In lamen terms it basically says that all citizens have the right to purchase and have a gun in their
possession providing certain restrictions.
An arm could be a pistol, revolver, shotgun, and rifle, which are classified as firearms or dangerous weapons and
require the purchaser of the weapon to be at least eighteen years of age for rifles and shotguns. Purchasers\' of pistols
or revolvers must be at least twenty-one years age. and are required to have a county certified permit on record. (SIG
ARMS, 12) All these above mentioned hand guns are dangerous weapons but, if you use them correctly and for the
right purpose, they fully justify there means--to protect or to hunt for food. There will always be the misuser\'s of
hand guns; but is taking away our protection the answer? Many believe it is. They think that taking away the guns
will eliminate crime and deaths completely. It is true that taking peoples right to bear arms, will probably increase
all these crimes because it leaves the innocent people sitting ducks. If the criminal commits one crime and gets away
with it easily, they will keep on committing crime!
s against society. This situation would be bad for us all.
Most of those opposed against handguns, or other pistols think it is to easy to get a gun, and that anybody can get
one. The qualification to purchase a handgun are: You must be a legal resident of the state for a least six months
prior to applying, applicant must be 21 years of age, Can not have been convicted of a felony, Cannot be a fugitive
from justice, must not be chemically dependent, and finally must be of sound mind. ( Section 2, 1, Internet)
All of these are required just to purchase a handgun. To carry a concealed handgun it is much harder. For a
concealed handgun permit: you must have a completed purchase permit, have two recent valid color passports
photographs, certified copy of applicants birth certificate, proof of in state residency, to complete sets of legibly
classifiable finger prints of applicant by law enforcement agency (Section 3, 3, Internet).
Lately laws have changed. In 1995 the "Brady Act" passed. It required a seven day waiting period, to purchase a
firearm. In that waiting period it allows for police notification and a background check on all handgun purchasers. It
does help out a little in allowing law enforcement to weed out some of the people that might cause trouble with their
newly purchased firearm. Also a second law was passed it was a "Assault Weapon Ban" it banned production of
military look guns. ( mostly which are not used in crimes) Some example of those gun would be the MAC10, TEC9
and the COLT AR-15. A provision in the act banned all over ten shot magazines. (Knox, 2)
These acts have made some input into todays gun control war. However if everybody looked at this through the
Utilitarian view I