Rights of Life Should Be Heard | Teen Ink

Rights of Life Should Be Heard

November 13, 2014
By JincyJM SILVER, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
JincyJM SILVER, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7 articles 0 photos 1 comment

Favorite Quote:
Good friends are like stars. You don't always see them, but you know they are there.

According to the Second Amendment, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If we take it away from the citizens, they will say we are violating their rights. But have you thought about the victims who have been shot or killed? Their right was also violated! That right was their right to live.

Our nation should have gun control laws to help control and put limits down on where or when you can take out and use a gun. Yes, many times we hear that criminals can get guns no matter how many laws we may put. However, by implementing laws we may make it harder for criminals to obtain a gun. For example, we could start by putting laws to stop straw purchase. Straw purchase is when you buy a gun and then sell it off to another person. If we manage to stop straw purchasing then there could be a possibility that the rate of mass shootings and attacks may decrease. 

As  we  can  see in  multiple  articles  such  as  the  LA Times, Gun Control Isn’t  The  Answer,  Mr.  James  Q.  Wilson  displays how  gun  control  is  not  good  and  it  violates  their  laws. Yet, you aren’t getting your rights violated. Gun control is not gun prohibition. According to the SIRS: Gun Control Timeline, “Wal-Mart stops selling handguns in its stores, although customers can continue to purchase the weapons through the in-store catalog.” This illustrates even though it is harder to attain a gun, it is not impossible.  You are not getting all your guns taken away. The only difference was that the way you can use a gun has gotten more difficult for the sake of the citizens, so they will not live in fear.

More than anyone else the mothers of our nation understand this. “No  child's  life  should  end  with  a  bang,”  says  a mother  who  was  participating  in  the Million  Mom  March. On  May  14,  2000,  750,000  people  attended  this march to  tell  the  government what they want, which is gun control laws. In  2001  the  mothers  of  New  Jersey  rallied because  they  realized  that  if  they  didn’t  take  action,  then  no  one  would.  According  to  Fox  News  it  stated  that  in  2001  around  5,732  children  under  the age of 17 were killed due to gun shootings. Even after hearing about children getting hurt and innocent people accidently getting killed, why is it that we still don’t do anything about it? Is the life of a human that cheap? To hear of innocent people getting killed, but we don’t do anything to prevent someone else to go through the same pain, isn’t that rude to the innocent life that was taken?

    Many people that are against gun control state that they keep their guns on them at all times because they do not know where the next crime is going to be so if they happen to be at the crime site, they can do their best to help the situation, but that can also backfire on us. In the article ‘We Need Gun Control to Stop More than Criminals’ Susan Milligan writes how a man in Florida shoots a fellow man in a movie theatre for refusing to stop texting. This just may be me, but that does not sound like protecting a fellow citizen, but then how could you help protect a fellow citizen?

We could start by upgrading the types of weapons that the police departments, military, and paramilitary units have and downgrade the types of weapons that we, the regular citizens have. According to a CNN article, Steve Almasy states how the shooter at the Sandy school’s shooting had used a Bushmaster AR-15 which is a semiautomatic rifle. This rifle has the capability “of firing a rate of 45 rounds per minute in semiautomatic mode” (CNN article). It also stated that in 1994 there was a ban to such weapons, but then in 2004 this ban expired? Why is it that this ban was not renewed? After knowing that this can cause such a dangerous damage, is there still no law to enforce who does and does not have the capability to use this? These types of guns should be limited to the departments who protect the citizens, not to those who take lives away, but that may seem very hard to find and locate these types of people, but there is a way to start.

According to the article ‘The Conservative Case on Gun Control’ it states, “Let’s restrict the access to all weaponry for people shown to be at high risk of violence, mental, or emotional instability…. we should also cap the kinds of arsenals people acquire.” According to this quote the author is stating that we should limit the types of people who have the right to attain a gun, but why is it that that isn’t already done? It also states in ‘Gun Show Background Checks State Laws’, “Known as the ‘gun show loophole,’ most states do not require background checks for firearms purchased at gun shows from private individuals (Governing Data).  This quote backs up on how they do not require background checks, but why is it called a loophole? That is because this is a way for criminals and those with bad intentions to attain a gun. If we were able to avoid giving guns to people who are going through depression or going through a violent stage in their lives, then wouldn’t we possibly be able to decrease the number of shootings and ‘accidental’ murders?  Why is it that we are not able to see the truth?

Innocent people live their everyday lives with hope for the future, not with fear that their lives may end right there and then with the hit of a single bullet. As a citizen I can say the gun control is meant for the protection of the people and for the hope that we the citizens have for the future, so that we can keep developing until our futures come. So step up and take initiative to make the gun control stricter.

Similar Articles


This article has 2 comments.

JincyJM SILVER said...
on Dec. 15 2014 at 7:51 pm
JincyJM SILVER, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
7 articles 0 photos 1 comment

Favorite Quote:
Good friends are like stars. You don't always see them, but you know they are there.

Thank you "teebon" for replying to my article. Honestly speaking this essay wasn't a task from my "civics" teacher. It is actually for English class, and this is all based on a simple opinion I hold. It is nice to have to hear what other people have to say about this article. Now, if I am not mistaken, I am guessing you are anti-gun control, and I respect that, but please before you say all this look at all the negative points to allowing citizens to hold guns. "Once again" I am reassuring you that is all based upon a simple opinion. There is no need to get anxious about it, but thank you for your 'opinion' "teebon."

teebonicus said...
on Nov. 24 2014 at 10:20 am
This is a textbook example of the success of progressive brainwashing of our youth.   "Jazzy" obviously has no concept of the Doctrine of Prior Restraint, nor of the sanctity of enumerated individual rights. Nor of the constitutional command for due process of law; a crime, an arrest based upon probable cause, an arraignment or indictment, a trial, and a guilty verdict determined "beyond a reasonable doubt" before any INDIVIDUAL's rights can be attenuated.   Prior Restraint forecloses government from broadly infringing fundamental rights based upon the presumption that they "may" be used to commit a crime.   That, "Jazzy", is what gun control (disingenuously rebranded "gun safety" or "common sense gun laws") is all about - preempting the exersize of the people's right to go armed based upon the presumption that even a tiny percentage of them "may" use that right to commit a crime.   In our constitutional republic, there is no delegated power for the government to do this.   Our system is founded upon unalienable rights and individual liberty. The Constitution outlines a system by which misuse of that liberty may be addressed and punished.   Punishing the whole of the people by attenuating their fundamental rights a priori is anathema to the very soul of the United States of America.   Sue your civics teacher, "Jazzy". S/he ain't doin' that good of a job.