Mass shootings are increasing in the United States, and Democrats are seizing the opportunity to push anti-gun legislation to deter gun violence in America. Guns and the Second Amendment have come to the forefront of political rhetoric, leading to conflicting views between Republicans and Democrats on the future of gun legislation. Republicans are encouraging law abiding citizens to purchase firearms and defend themselves against acts of violence by criminals. On the contrary, Democrats believe the only way to slow gun violence in the United States is to outlaw guns in the general public. While certain politicians believe strict gun laws would protect the American people, the proposed policies would make our nation more vulnerable to violent attacks, as well as infringe upon the Second Amendment right of United States citizens to bear arms. Recent attacks all around the world—specifically in Paris and San Bernardino—have caused Americans to be on heightened alert for acts of terrorism and mass shootings. On December 2nd, 2015 a husband and wife murdered 14 people and wounded 21 at an office building in San Bernardino, California. Armed with enough firepower to fight a small war, these terrorists continued to shoot until they were eventually shot and killed by law enforcement. Only two short weeks prior in Paris, France, a group of terrorists went on a rampage at multiple venues across the city. Armed with bombs and automatic rifles, these members of the ISIS terror cell murdered over 120 people, and wounded dozens more. In response to these attacks, increasing numbers of Americans feel the need to arm themselves as a means of self defense. After the shooting in California, local gun shops noticed a roughly 25% increase in business. Likewise, local Sheriff’s departments received over five times the number of concealed carry permits as they regularly do. Orange County, California alone received 130 permit requests, up from their average of 30, while neighboring San Bernardino County screened seven times their weekly average (Mather). The increase in California gun sales shows that residents want the ability to defend themselves in the event of another shooting—an opportunity they would not have if guns were outlawed for personal use. The nationwide trend over past years shows similar results. A 2014 Pew Research study found 52% of surveyed Americans in support of gun rights compared to 46% who want stricter regulations on firearms. The divide between political parties is demonstrated by the 80% of Republicans in support of guns, while only 35% of Democrats support gun rights (Feldmann). As violence surges, Americans are arming themselves against the violence to protect their lives and the lives of those around them. Increased gun control and weapons bans will not affect criminals looking to inflict harm upon others due to the fact that a majority of criminals do not acquire their weapons legally through a gun dealer. A study performed by Duke University and the University of Chicago examined 100 Cook County [Chicago] inmates with firearm
…show more content…
This Constitutional provision states that it is “The right of the people to keep and bear arms,” and this right “shall not be infringed” (Kates). The founding fathers of the United States believed citizens should be armed as a means of discouraging government tyranny and keeping a majority of the power in the hands of the people. A majority of constitutional experts agree the language of the Second Amendment allows for every law abiding citizen to own firearms, however there are critics who believe only state militias have the right to keep and bear arms in …show more content…
The most important gun case heard by the Supreme Court in recent years was the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller. After Washington, D.C. passed a series of strict regulations and restrictions for personal firearms in the District of Columbia, a group of gun owners filed a lawsuit against the city claiming the new legislation violated the Second Amendment. They believed that the gun laws being imposed upon them violated their Second Amendment rights by prohibiting them from buying, owning, and/or carrying firearms in Washington, D.C.. Although the case was not heard by the United States Supreme Court, the case was first tried in district court in 2003 in response to the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975
This Constitutional provision states that it is “The right of the people to keep and bear arms,” and this right “shall not be infringed” (Kates). The founding fathers of the United States believed citizens should be armed as a means of discouraging government tyranny and keeping a majority of the power in the hands of the people. A majority of constitutional experts agree the language of the Second Amendment allows for every law abiding citizen to own firearms, however there are critics who believe only state militias have the right to keep and bear arms in …show more content…
The most important gun case heard by the Supreme Court in recent years was the case of District of Columbia vs. Heller. After Washington, D.C. passed a series of strict regulations and restrictions for personal firearms in the District of Columbia, a group of gun owners filed a lawsuit against the city claiming the new legislation violated the Second Amendment. They believed that the gun laws being imposed upon them violated their Second Amendment rights by prohibiting them from buying, owning, and/or carrying firearms in Washington, D.C.. Although the case was not heard by the United States Supreme Court, the case was first tried in district court in 2003 in response to the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975