Gun Laws Pros And Cons

Words: 814
Pages: 4

We the people of the United States of America have a Constitutional right to own a handgun, we shall not amend the Constitution for guns to be illegal or have restrictive gun laws. The majority of people believe that the government should not get involved with the rights of the citizens owning a weapon. Our founding fathers fought the British for all the rights and freedoms that we are proudly granted to have today. The government has been slowly and surreptitiously restricting our rights in every aspect of our rights as citizens of the United States, including, ones relating to weapon usage and weapon owning. Anyone who so desires should be able to possess a gun and be able to protect themselves in case any danger is present.
Although we do have police officers with handguns to protect and serve the citizens, there are still many threats and dangers that are made in the streets, making mere roaming around unsafe and potentially life threatening for other citizens who have no means of defending themselves with. However, police officers do serve in protecting civilians from unnecessarily breaking laws in attempting to defend themselves, but if such laws didn’t exist, there wouldn’t be people breaking laws simply their own
…show more content…
Heller Supreme Court case was a court case in which The District of Columbia argued that one is not permitted to use any random or unlicensed hand gun and then argue the fact that you have a right to bear arms. The District as well said that the second amendment may only be used when the handgun is registered to the person and is privately owned. Just like the District of Columbia case, the McDonald vs. Chicago court case argued just about the same and that the states could not deprive you of the 14th amendment. Both the District of Columbia and McDonald won their cases. The cases show that the government will try to argue as much to either reduce or keep our rights as limited and controlled as they possibly