Why Gun Restrictions Should Not Be Stricter? Speech Example

In America, the law allows possession of a gun or a firearm. Notably, after the ratification of laws permitting citizens to hold firearms, the country has come up with laws that restrict qualify the provisions of the second amendment. With time, the laws against possession of firearms are becoming strict to the extent of completely disarming the citizens (Case Western Reserve Law Review, 2014). Evidently, this is contrary to the explicit provisions of the second amendment, which provides that the first step of protecting citizens and the country as a whole is giving citizens the right to own firearms. Indeed, the law in United States provides for citizens to have guns as long as one acquires it legally.

As aforementioned, making gun, restrictions stricter will deny citizens their rights as provided by the Second Amendment of 1791. Notably, some states in America had enacted laws that prohibited citizens from possessing guns unless they had a license. As evident in District of Columbia v Heller[1] the Second Amendment gives exclusive rights to American citizens to own firearms (Blackman, 43). In effect to this law, any law that denies the citizens this constitutional law, despite the purpose is null and void to the extent of being inconsistent (The New American, 2014). In this case, the Supreme Court gave a landmark ruling which made it clear that the intentions of the Second Amendment was to make sure that each citizen was entitled to holding a firearm and to use it for lawful purposes like self-defense (The American Spectator, 2014).

In addition, enacting stricter restrictions on guns’ possession will make it difficult for people to protect themselves and their families (Grillo, 2013). In modern America, citizens feel that insecurity is a major menace and every citizen should have a weapon to protect himself. Evidently, the police cannot protect every person, therefore, enacting laws that restrict the extent to which a person can own a gun would be more of restricting human liberty and exposing them to insecurity (English, 2014). Prior to the Holocaust, Hitler ensured that the whole German population was disarmed so that it would be easy for him to encroach on their rights. Therefore, to protect the rights of the people, especially the right to security, the country should not enact laws limiting the extent to which people own guns (English, 2014).

In addition, enactment of the laws limiting possession of guns in America will not prevent criminals from having guns (Kairys, 2013). Notably, the main reason why the authorities are restricting possession of guns to ensure that criminals will find it difficult to own guns. Regardless of the whether laws are enacted or not, criminals are by default non-observers of the law. Therefore, any law enacted will only affect law abiding citizens while the criminals will continue doing their activities (A Higher Caliber of Regulation, 2014). As a result, the citizens should be allowed to own guns to protect themselves while the governments should implement other methods to stop criminals from performing their illegal activities.

Conclusively, it is evident that laws prohibiting or limiting citizens’ access to firearms and guns should not be enacted in the USA. Notably, these laws are unconstitutional. The second amendment explicitly provides that the government should not deny citizens their right to own guns. Secondly, refusing citizens to own guns will be exposing them to preventable security issues. In America, insecurity is an inherent issue that every citizen is familiar with and tries to avoid. Notably, guns are the best means of defense nowadays so the citizens should be allowed to have guns exclusively. Finally, the government should not claim that legalizing guns gives encourages criminals because criminals do not follow the law, therefore, any law enacted to curb them is meaningless.

References

A Higher Caliber of Regulation: Is Making Smart-Gun Technology Mandatory Constitutionally Permissible? (Vol. 65). (2014). Case Western Reserve Law Review·.

English, W. (2014). Economic and Ideological Corruptions of the Regulatory State. New York, NY: Springer Science Business Media.

Grillo, J. (2013). Loaded Issue. Expand or restrict? Georgia policy makers, advocates, and experts weigh in on gun laws, sure to be a hot topic in the upcoming legislature. New York, NY: Trend Publications

English, W. (2014). Economic and Ideological Corruptions of the Regulatory State. Soc 51:262– 267

Case Western Reserve Law Review (2014)· A Higher Caliber of Regulation: Is Making Smart- Gun Technology Mandatory Constitutionally Permissible? Volume 65· Issue 1 ·

Kairys, D. (2013). Self-Defense and Gun Regulation for All. Connecticut Law Review. Vol 45, English, W. (2014). Economic and Ideological Corruptions of the Regulatory State. New York, NY: Springer Science Business Media.

Terell, R. (2014). Playing Mind Games With the Second Amendment. New York, NY.

The american spectator. (n.d.). On Gun-Shy Justices.

[1]128 S. Ct.2783(2008)