"When there are laws against owning firearms, the law abiding citizens turn in their weapons. The law breaking citizens do not " (French). Again, those with the intent to kill will find a way to kill, and by taking away guns, innocent people now have no easy way to defend themselves. Allowing responsible citizens to own guns will not cause more violence, and taking away guns from responsible citizens will not lessen the violence, it will most likely cause rebellion. The Second Amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed ", meaning that the people of the United States are entitled to own guns, and the government cannot take away that right. A large debate, is if citizens should have the right to bear assault weapons. The Second Amendment was not just intended for home defense, it was intended to guarantee that the nation could overcome any intruding power if the military was not available. By limiting assault rifles, you are thereby infringing upon our Second Amendment right. Banning only assault weapons is essentially pointless, as there will still be other guns and other weapons. In fact, the most violent mass shooting in the nation's history, Virginia Tech, was committed with handguns. Infringing upon our right to bear arms is ultimately unconstitutional, and even if there were a ban to assault weapons, people could still easily get their hands on them. .
Gun control advocates believe that an obvious change to be made would be to "mandate a criminal background check for all gun purchases ", as that will prevent dangerous people from getting weapons (Keefe). In theory, it is a good system. However, the idea of using background checks as the main means to distinguish the good people from the bad people shows how flawed the idea of gun control really is. A background check seems like a good idea, however again, it only affects the law abiding citizens.
