An Argument Against Gun Control By: Jonathan Pratt An Argument Against Gun Control As long ago as 1789, the creators of the Constitution realized the importance of guns in American society. The Second Amendment states,"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." No loopholes, or legal caches exist in this statement. The Founding Fathers allow for no restriction of the private ownership of firearms. Yet, in recent years anti-gun politicians have attempted to control guns in the name of crime prevention. Gun control makes no effort to control criminals, does not reduce crime, takes guns from responsible sportsmen and recreational shooters, and allows criminals to possess firearms superior to those of the public. Advocates that support the cause of control claim that controlling firearms will lesson criminal action. Gun control does nothing to control criminals. The fundamental flaw in the thinking of anti-gun polititions is that guns don't kill people. People kill people. The same logic that leads one to control firearms could also lead one to endeavor to control automobiles and fast food simply because they are instrumental in millions of deaths per year. Why when Americans reject such an absurd theory as "Automobile Control," which do not infringe the constitution,. would these same individuals embrace an idea as gun control? People accept gun control, but if a politician would suggest "controlling" fast food restaurants because the fatty food causes heart problems and deaths, the public would scorn his insane proposal. Ultimately, people's choices lead them to drive recklessly, overindulge in unhealthy food, and use firearms to commit viol...
