Is Openly Carrying Guns A Justifiable Act Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Is Openly Carrying Guns A Justifiable Act - Essay eccentricThe 2nd Amendment, which states, a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the safe of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed supplys people the liberty to arm themselves with weapons for their knowledge self-defense. This right is respected by some states to the extent that people should expose the accelerators they are carrying, so hanker as they were legally acquired. One camp, such as that of Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) considers themselves responsible bomber owners and claims that they do not use the gun until it is necessary. They believe that the sight of guns is enough to dispel any untoward incidents by criminals. Because of this, so many people were enticed to buy guns for themselves. VCDLs issuance of gun permits increased dramatically from 3,000 in 1994 to 180,000 in 2009. However, some people may not react positively to this since guns are very beguiling to just use at ones whim if that individual is impulsive. It may go discharge accidentally hurting even the owner, or someone within peripheral distance. If the gun carrier is attached to temperamental outbursts, then it is worse, since if he is provoked, then he has his gun to vent his temper with. Responsible gun owners are aware of this and vehemently deny that they are that weak. They even advocate for the law of first canvas the background of whoever wants to buy a gun before releasing it to just anyone who may have the drift to use it any which way he wants. This is where people call upon the 14th Amendment. It is clearly stated in Section one of this amendment that No State shall make or enforce any law which shall tailor the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due work on of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. T his amendment, or internalization Doctrine, advocates the Bill of Rights to balance off whatever laws that may override the rights of others. In this case, the 2nd Amendment may give the right to people to bear arms however, it should also respect the rights of others who do not advocate gun ownership in the smell that it is not necessary. This conflict causes a huge confusion that may get away people divided, and the government, in a fence-sitting position. President Obama was known as the most anti-gun president. NRA or National break down Association protested against him for gun control laws. Obamas stand was that guns are harmful and should not be openly carried even if it is licensed in order to prevent it from firing at anyone, whether intentionally or not. The NRA transcription claims that its members are responsible gun owners who are discerning about gun use and are against mostly selling firearms to just about anyone. Seven states have ruled that any gun manufactured in their state is free from gun control laws. This implies no background micro chips, no age restrictions, no requirements for sellers to check out before releasing guns to buyers. This is their interpretation of the second amendment right. This ruling may be abused by some people who may claim that the gun they own was manufactured in that state, hence they do not have to go through thorough background check before being issued a permit. The federal government may also be suspected of concealing weapons so that these would be exempt from gun control laws because Obama has not done anything regarding NRAs protest, and seems apathetic to the issue. Personally, I am not in favor of the Open Carry gun policy of some states. I do respect their belief of