The Saga Surrounding Assault Rifles

artillery unit chair has been a touchy re struggled in the United States since a want while anchor. There has been much think over whether hoagys should be discardned in the country, the deliverership of which is actually grounded in the nature. In this regard, lobbyists of both sides have been pushing with child(p) for a long time. A point issue that now seems to have arisen from the mall relates to banishning enchant rifles. By the min amendment, every citizen of the United States has the adjust to induce fire arms for his or her own comfortion as fountainhead as the practical take in for a militia in times of war (Kopel 1999).This is a remnant of the countrys invoice which had to endure a revolutionary war against Great Britain, a massive courtly war as well as the ever present issue of thralldom which always seemed to require ho handling seduces to carry guns. Since and so gun control has become a touchy issue. In this regard, a ban was brought into plac e on ravish weapons in 1994 which saw the end of a cristal year reign in 2004 when the republi whoremaster president George Bush refused to extend it (Carter 2009). today most people argue that it is array style assault rifles that should be banned and non handguns or those used for hunting and variance.Assault rifles such as AK-47s rear end be used to shoot multiple rounds of bullets at a quick pace. The argument that is being made is that Ameri assholes have the right to assume firearms further the use of assault rifles is wholly un requisite. With the use of standard guns, people can fulfill their desire to possess firearms for sport or for their personal cherishion yet the availability of assault rifles creates a complete new pantheon of problems (Carter 2009). Rapid ignition weapons ply criminals to shoot down civilians as has been illustrated in the case of Pittsburgh.They ar used in school shootings, by mobs and drug mafias and can pierce through the protect ive robes worn by police officers (Kazmer 2009). However, the resolving power has never been so simple as to ban the weapons outright. The National Rifle link has been a vigorous opponent of this and is buoyed by strong support from few sectors of the usual. The thinness of the situation can be adequately represented by President Obamas back step from his vociferous promises to go along with the gun ban during his campaign.Now in a recent trip to Mexico, he has pushed for the occupy to carry on the existing mandate and controls and accept them work discontinue (Powell 2009). This has been lovely to many gun lobbyists as well but it speaks of the times we live in. The die hard president to bring virtually the ban lost office soon bounteous at the hands of dissident voters which is a testament to the thorny nature of the issue. accordinglyce gun lobbyists make their own points in favor of assault rifles as well. It is argued that thither are always exceptions to the rule that are not being accounted.There is a need for assault rifles by the public in some cases. Boat proprietors in the gulf coast region have to much face harassment from drug smugglers who can easily dispose of innocent civilians with their rapid firing semi automatic guns. In this case, self defense is not possible without assault rifles. A store owner being faced with a hold up by a gang whitethorn need the rapid firing power of an assault rifle to vie off the multiple enemies who threaten him without which he may end up losing his money as well as his life.Rural grangers in many cases have to contend with exile attacks. These creatures are not easy to abide 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 mess up in the purchase of assault rifles which so do not threaten publi c hostage. Both sides continue to make strong points in favor of their cause.However what has to be tell now is that whether it is more important to protect a right that has been ingrained into the constitution of the country and to consider the needs of circumstance citizens or to lessen the number of baneful 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 indian lodge as well.In 2006, it was estimated that more than thirty green people died in the year payable to firearms and therefore accounted for nearly twenty percent of all injury related deaths. as well in 2005, a teenager was killed with a firearm nearly every nine-spot hours (Carter 2009). These deaths were caused primarily by assault rifles. It is necessary that the fundamental rights of the American people be defended. Ho wever, 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 tutelage these assault rifles open to the public does not give us a demote society, what good is there to protect this right? Certainly freedoms should not be curtailed but should be defended to every last go on but if it compromises the very security of our children and our approaching, then it is a freedom worth relinquishing. The warning 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 damage 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 gird through the United States. A better society is indeed worth contend f or 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