Is Obama gun control good or bad why?

Answer 1

Early in 2013, Senator Dianne Feinstein from California proposed several bills to Congress relating to gun control. There were three major features of these bills. The first was a ban on all "assault rifles", or any guns with even one military feature. The second major aspect was a ban on all magazines that can carry over ten rounds of ammunition. The last major aspect was an intensive background check on all gun owners. Much debate has occurred in and out of Congress on this issue. While Feinstein and her associates say, "Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe," most conservatives declare that the proposed legislation violates Americans' second amendment rights.

The advocates of this bill believe that this legislation is needed to make our country safer. They say that assault rifles are not needed to hunt, but are for killing many people fast. The same principle applies to the ban on magazines with over ten rounds. The only time you would need over ten rounds is if you were to be shooting many times. They also agree that a more intensive background check is necessary to prevent criminals from easily obtaining guns. But would theses bills really provide a safer country?

When debating laws regarding our second amendment rights, Congress should look at our founding fathers original intent when they wrote the Bill of Rights. "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."(emphasis added) The second amendment does not say the people have the right to hunt; that was already assumed! The original intention of the founding fathers was for the citizenship to keep an armed and well regulated militia to defend themselves against a tyrannical government! The founding fathers established this as part of the "checks and balances" system. It was the peoples' check on the government. The amendment also clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed! To infringe means to "Act so as to limit or undermine (something)." Does this not mean that when imposing a "limit" on arms, they are "infringing" on our second amendment rights? Congress should decide whether it is worth it to infringe on the rights of the people in order to add a little safety.

There are many reasons why our second amendment right must not be infringed. First off, banning assault rifles would do practically nothing to preserve lives. According to CBS news, assault rifles are involved in between 1%-2% of all homicides in the U. S. Over 49% of homicides are committed with handguns. Second of all, if Congress bans assault rifles and high capacity magazines, then the good, law-abiding citizens will no longer have them, only criminals will have them, which is an even more dangerous situation. For example, Chicago has the strictest bans on guns of all cities in the United States, but also leads the country in gun violence. Lastly, of the is the only one who has powerful, high capacity weapons, then how will the people keep the government in check or defend themselves from tyranny? It is more important to keep our rights than to risk them for the little safety we would gain.

ND