In defense of gun control laws essay

In the process of making this weapon, there will be no much difficulty involved and the process is not complex and not expensive. In making a biological weapons there is no need for large facilities. Biological weapons are made in the use of any pathogen su Laws that forbid the carrying of arms.

In defense of gun control laws essay

The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate by A Publication of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership "Intellectual Ammunition to Destroy Gun Control" The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties.

Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most In defense of gun control laws essay have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.

Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility.

Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves. In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories.

Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc.

Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema.

In defense of gun control laws essay

Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement.

Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.

A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for "business.

Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.

It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those "barbaric"enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked.

Catchy titles

In reality, many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.

The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo.

Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks.

After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.

Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed.

Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions.

These profiteers stand to loose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations.

No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.

People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunctionally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership with regard to defense.

To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their "civilized" universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess.The problem is not that the murderers are armed.

The problem is that the rest are unarmed.

In defense of gun control laws essay

Gun Free Zones = Shooting Fish in a Barrel. They don’t even get a .

{dialog-heading}

Essay on Gun Control There have been arguments regarding the gun control in the United States where some people have been on the idea that laws on gun control should be enhanced while others supported the idea that they should be scrapped and there should no be rules governing gun control in the country.

Gun control is an effort to stop the rise in violent crime by strengthening laws on the ownership of firearms. Guns should be taken out of the hands of criminals So that the world would be a safe. Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys, but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating.

Thus, Just Facts uses this data critically, citing the best-designed . Gun Control Essay. Do we really need gun control? Both of them thought of Australia as the model for stringent gun laws. The intention is good, but the question is, why hasn’t the US government ultimately implemented gun control?

Other people argue that they need firearms because they use it for self-defense. They acquire a license for it.

Justice reform sounded like a good idea in Albania, which like many former communist countries, is dealing with the hangover from a decades-long legacy of corruption.

Gun Control Essay Sample - JetWriters