Laws Don't Control Guns

3 Pages 667 Words

"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." Second Amendment (United States

constitution).


Irrespective of all arguments pertaining to the syntax of the above, the fact remains that the

amendment guarantees the contination of the right to keep and bear arms to the people (Gun

Week September 1991). The question is whether today's world can accommodate this 200-

year-old article whose amendment requires a two-thirds majority of each house and

three-fourths of the states' vote; whose amendment process can be totally ruined by just a small

percentage of the U.S. population.


It is essential to understand that the constitution is not etched in stone. With the dawn of

technological industry and formulation of automatic weapons, the US Government has

prohibited sales and ownership of such since 1934. In 1993 the Brady Bill was passed resulting

in a very obvious Show-Gun Loophole. Again in 1994 an act was passed resulting in

prohibition of weapons within a said radius of schools and government buildings. Still further

acts of installing safety features in guns to prevent tragedies have been points of controversy.


Experience and reason dictate that laissez faire and totalitarian rules are equally harmful and fine

boundaries need be drawn to fully capture the essence of democracy. Supporters of further gun

control argue that with fewer guns violence will decrease. Tragedies involving minors will reduce

and America will be a safer place to live.


The argument is like saying that with fewer swords or with fewer arrows violence will decrease.

Violence is not a function of the weapon. It is a result of temporary and/or permanent state of

mind. A gun can trigger violence no more than a knife, a sword, or an arrow can.

In an average year five times as many ch...