The Saga Surrounding Assault Rifles

triggerman control has been a touchy issue in the United States since a long while back. There has been much debate over whether gaseous states should be crookize in the country, the ownership of which is actually grounded in the constitution. In this regard, lobbyists of both(prenominal) sides open been pushing hard for a long time. A special(prenominal) issue that now seems to have arisen from the middle relates to banning set on rifles. By the second amendment, either citizen of the United States has the right to bear fire harness for his or her own shelter as easy as the possible need for a militia in times of war (Kopel 1999).This is a remnant of the countrys history which had to endure a extremist war against Great Britain, a massive civil war as well as the ever present issue of slavery which unceasingly seemed to require households to carry guns. Since then gun control has become a touchy issue. In this regard, a ban was brought into place on assault weapons in 1994 which saw the end of a ten year govern in 2004 when the Republi great deal president George Bush refused to extend it (Carter 2009). Now intimately people argue that it is military style assault rifles that should be banned and non handguns or those used for hunting and sport.Assault rifles such as AK-47s derriere be used to shoot multiple rounds of bullets at a quick pace. The argument that is being made is that Ameri foundations have the right to bear firearms exactly the use of assault rifles is wholly unnecessary. With the use of standard guns, people can fulfill their desire to possess firearms for sport or for their personal protection scarcely the availability of assault rifles creates a whole new pantheon of problems (Carter 2009). speedy firing weapons allow criminals to shoot down civilians as has been illustrated in the carapace of Pittsburgh.They be used in school shootings, by gangs and drug mafias and can pierce through the protective clothing worn by constabulary take awayicers (Kazmer 2009). However, the solution has never been so simple as to ban the weapons outright. The study Rifle Association has been a hearty opponent of this and is buoyed by strong support from some sectors of the public. The delicacy of the situation can be adequately represented by President Obamas back step from his insistent promises to continue with the gun ban during his campaign.Now in a recent stir up to Mexico, he has pushed for the need to carry on the existing legislation and controls and make headway them work get out (Powell 2009). This has been pleasing to many gun lobbyists as well exclusively it speaks of the times we live in. The last president to bring to the highest degree the ban lost office soon enough at the custody of dissident voters which is a testament to the thorny nature of the issue. Indeed gun lobbyists make their own points in favor of assault rifles as well. It is argued that in that location are always exception s to the rule that are not being considered.There is a need for assault rifles by the public in some cases. gravy boat owners in the Gulf coast region have to frequently appear harassment from drug smugglers who can easily dispose of naive civilians with their rapid firing semi automatic guns. In this case, self defense is not possible without assault rifles. A store owner being confront with a hold up by a gang whitethorn need the rapid firing power of an assault rifle to represent off the multiple enemies who threaten him without which he whitethorn end up losing his money as well as his life.Rural sodbusters in many cases have to contend with bear attacks. These creatures are not easy to fend off with traditional rifles and handguns and assault rifles may be necessary for a farmer to defend his family in the rural wilderness (Kopel 1999). It is further argued that the everyday criminal makes use of hand guns mostly and does not indulge in the acquire of assault rifles which consequently do not threaten public security. twain sides continue to make strong points in favor of their cause.However what has to be deluxe now is that whether it is much important to protect a right that has been intrinsic into the constitution of the country and to consider the needs of particular citizens or to lessen the number of deadly guns available in the streets that result in deaths of innocent people. In this regard, one has to consider the facts. While it is known that assault rifles may be necessary in some cases, they also prove to be a severe detriment to American society as well.In 2006, it was estimated that more than thirty thousand people died in the year due to firearms and therefore accounted for nearly twenty percent of all injury related deaths. besides in 2005, a teenager was killed with a firearm nearly every nine hours (Carter 2009). These deaths were caused primarily by assault rifles. It is necessary that the fundamental rights of the American people be defended. However, the issue is not just about rights but about something much deeper. It relates to the security and the good living of the American public.If memory these assault rifles open to the public does not give us a better society, what good is there to protect this right? Certainly freedoms should not be curtailed but should be defended to every last inch but if it compromises the very security of our children and our proximo, then it is a freedom worth relinquishing. The specimen solution would be banning assault rifles all together. However, if this can not be met, it requires at least that better controls and back ground checks be brought into place with regards to gun purchases.This would not only help to control the constipation to some extent and protect the rights under the second amendment but may also help to lower the trafficking of these assault weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico which are armed through the United States. A better society is t husly worth fighting for and if compromises have to be made for a better future, it is perhaps prudent to make them now rather than let the bearers of our future suffer. Biblio