The Right to Bear ArmsEssay Preview: The Right to Bear ArmsReport this essayJordan Simke 12 April 2016POS1041Professor Roda The Right to Bear ArmsThe right to bear arms is guaranteed in the constitution by the Second Amendment. Liberals are looking to amend the constitution any way they can to stop citizens from owning guns. They want to ban handguns or at least restrict sales, and furthermore want to ban sales of semi-automatic rifles. Studies have shown that gun control cannot stop people from committing the crime. In spite of the clarity of this amendment there has been numerous, and consistent attacks on this right. While developing the system of government, our Founding Father, feared that a standing army controlled by a central government would be helpless to the people in time of need. That the right to own and bear arms to protect one’s self would be more efficient and cost effective than a standing militia. Banning guns would also play a role in the freedom to hunt, or to go sport shooting.
Gun control would not reduce the amount of crimes caused by guns or the fatality of these crimes. Firearms kill sixty percent of all murder victims in the United States. Firearms injure another seventy thousand people per year. Medicare paid 14 billion dollars last year for injuries involving firearms (Lindermann 1). Among all the robberies and assaults, the handgun is the most common gun due to the concealability of a handgun. That statement is the thought that causes people to assume the banishing of the Second Amendment would be the problem solver in the cause of the deaths and injuries associated with weapons. The evidence behind this thought has been proven to be wrong numerous times, but the Second Amendment is still receiving continuous scrutiny by liberals.
The NRA and the NRA’s other Big Secret Government-Industry-Loyalistic Party continue to peddle their agenda. We have seen, for example, this past week’s release of the FBI investigation of a terrorist with ties to a major armed terrorist organization. The “unusual terrorist group” being investigated is probably the “gun lobby” that is being pushed to ban guns in every state. More troubling to many states, the FBI has discovered that more than half the gun manufacturers or distributors of federally licensed firearms were not aware of the FBI investigation. That includes both those manufacturing a pistol, and those distributors or gunmakers that do not care about safety of the guns they sell (see section 2.4 above). As the NRA further promotes the “gun lobby” narrative, we will continue to read and review the background check proposals. At this time, the FBI, who are making extensive efforts to ban federally licensed firearms and their purchasers, have only been able to locate a handful of manufacturers that are not cooperating with a federal court in federal court. That makes the following: a) no federal court has ever refused to let the FBI pursue an individual named Bruce LaPierre, a.k.a. the “gun lobby.” b) at least one state that had legalized concealed carry on November 10, 2005, still has some firearms in production and currently has 2,200 licensed concealed carry, and c) the state of Nevada is considering a legal ban on gun possession of youth based on a federal directive that prohibits the state or federal government from requiring a teenager or young adult to have a gun with them, except to “carry a concealed weapon.”
The FBI’s investigation of firearms was conducted using various methods, from the FBI’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to its own independent police departments. The FBI did not conduct a physical interview with any of the firearms manufacturers or distributors that were involved in the manufacture of these weapons. Indeed, the media, in conjunction with the media’s media relations departments, were prevented from speaking to any of the ATF or Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) firearms buyers during our visit as evidenced by the fact that the ATF did not allow the media to speak with the gun manufacturers over the phone, despite many of them having been provided a copy of the FBI’s background check forms by the ATF’s Department of Justice. This omission of the ATF’s records from the FBI did not lead to the appearance of a conflict as noted by the media, where ATF has not responded to every interview. This is especially alarming given that the ATF have not responded to questions from the Washington, D.C., press concerning the gun manufacturers. Despite what The Washington Post does in regards to an FBI background check, the ATF’s records showed that the Bureau responded to the gun maker’s letters of enquiry with numerous letters of investigation. The evidence of this omission is that by the end of February of 2004, approximately half of its sales had been made through the ATF’s website. It was not until we reached this point that ATF responded to every complaint that an individual could make within that organization or