Why liberal gun laws are bad and how they affect the community Research Paper

Why liberal gun laws are bad and how they affect the community - Research Paper Example The subject of gun control is contentious and the debate surrounding it often emotional usually centering on conflicting interpretations of the Constitution. Most people agree that the Second Amendment allows citizens to own guns for protection and hunting. Both common sense, as the title indicates, the law of the land and statistics demonstrate, stricter guns laws make us less not more safe. The idea of gun control in the State of Texas is absurd for all reasons already mentioned in addition to the independent nature of the culture in Texas. Much the same as in other states, guns are a tradition passed from father to son, a way of life. Even if some types of guns were outlawed, the logistical problem and practicality of collecting them would also be absurd. According to the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, â€Å"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† (â€Å"Th e Constitution†, 2006). This, as were the entire Bill of rights, was added by the founders of the country so as to provide a clearer definition of the specific rights granted to all Americans. Gun control supporters consider the Second Amendment to be â€Å"obsolete; or is intended solely to guard against suppression of state militias by the central government and therefore restricted in scope by that intent; or does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but one that can be limited by reasonable requirements† (Krouse, 2002). However, they only question the need for people to own firearms that are not primarily designed for sporting purposes such as hunting. Clearly, the right to own guns was of utmost importance to the Founding fathers given that it was listed second, after the freedom of speech and religion was acknowledged in the First Amendment. The Founders recognized that by ensuring the right to own arms, the public would have the ability to defend themselves fr om that which may jeopardize their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. This could include physical protection from animals and persons and or from an tyrannical government that endangered the freedoms outlined in the Constitution. â€Å"The Second Amendment reflects the founders’ belief that an armed citizenry, called the ‘general militia’ was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitution’s framers† (Reynolds & Caruth III, 1992). The State of Texas is known, somewhat deservedly, as having an open policy regarding firearms. Texans are permitted to carry concealed handguns after completing licensing requirements. George W. Bush, then Governor, signed a law which expressly permits guns to be carried in Church. Texans will, for the far foreseeable future, have their guns and be able to c arry them on their person. Statistics bear-out what Texans have seemingly always known. â€Å"States which have passed concealed-carry laws have seen their murder rate fall by 8.5 percent, rapes by 5 percent, aggravated assaults by 7 percent and robbery by 3 percent. In the early 1990s, Texas’s serious crime rate was 38 percent above the national average. Since then, serious crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the nation as a whole. All this happened after passage of a concealed-carry law in 1994.† LaRosa (2002) It has been said that Americans no longer need firearms the way they did 250 years ago. No unfriendly Indians and maybe a slight threat from wild animals; the government is secure and elected by a democratic procedure. In addition the people of the country have the most dominant armed forces