In the name of the security and defense of the common man and the self-preservation of the people of the United States of America, I declare that "Gun Grabbing" from law abiding citizens is an atrocity. I declare that we as a people within the United States of America have a personal and moral right to the bearing, acquiring, and/or preserving of firearms, by the virtue of the Second Amendment, which says, '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.' This passage of liberty was written by the wise framers of our constitution. They developed the system of today's republic, which makes this nation the greatest and most powerful country ever to be established on earth.
In arguing in the defense of citizenry rights to possessing firearms, it is logical to say that firearms to "law abiding citizens" provides personal and family based, psychological, as well as physical protection against domestic infiltration. Such infiltration I am referring to is that which is instigated by robbers and/or other domestic terrorists, who take residence in our neighboring communities. Anyone with a basic understanding of criminal psychology knows that pirate-like attackers of communal inhabitant structures A.K.A: "homes" are not prepared to lose their lives when visually confronted by a gun. Most people understand the risk of acting contrary to the commands of a person who possesses a lethal weapon. In comparison, robbers quickly disperse from cars and houses that have alarms, not because they can't continue with their original goal, but because they fear being caught by authority figures...who, interestingly...carry guns! Imagine that!
Another rather intelligent topic to note would be the argument that if all firearms were banned that mobs, gangs, and other terroristic-revenge-agenda-based militant groups will still have their fire arms because they are not "law abiding citizens." What happens when outlaws are told that they don't have to worry about not mugging or committing other crimes because people no longer have an effective means of defending themselves? I propose, without giving a statistical number, that crime rates would rise dramatically from a ban on firearms. The government is going to wonder, "How come crime rates keep rising, we already banned guns in the first place?" Do you know what will happen if the crime rates rise to an uncontrollable level? The government would legally be able to declare "Marshal Law." Marshal Law is a situation when the government, in a state of emergency, sends the military into the streets of its own nation to make sure that no one is out of their homes for a set amount of time and patrols the town with legal allowance to kill anyone who doesn't follow the orders of the military or is seen as a possible threat. Marshal law is a last resort option that is not a thing to take lightly. After an initiation of Marshal Law, there is no guaranty that crime rates will fall. In fact, it is very possible that it would make crime rates rise faster as a prelude to civil war, where the people feel threatened by each other and the government.
A common argument that goes back and forth with the Second Amendment is the part that states '...under a well-regulated militia..., the rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.'The reason there is open availability for an argument that people do not have personal rights to fire-arms and the reason there has been so much controversy on the subject of gun ownership is because of the three words: "well-regulated militia." Interpretation of that single phrase can run left or right for near eternity between the second amendment supporters and the Collectivist, "gun grabbers." In 2008, the issue was taken to the Supreme Court in the battle called District of Columbia vs. Heller. In the end the Supreme Court ruled that that the Second Amendment was meant to guarantee that the people of the United States of America have individual rights to possess guns and it is unconstitutional to ban them. Within The Constitution, it states that the Supreme Court has the final say on issues pertaining to the interpretation of the Constitution. However, more controversy has been aroused on the technicality that Washington D.C. is not a state therefore the court was unable to set a ruling to disband gun control laws within the states of America. On March 1, 2010 a new Supreme Court battle began known as McDonald V. Chicago. This new battle continues today and will be the final ruling as to whether extreme gun control laws will stay or if they will be repealed throughout the entire United States of America.
If gun control stays we will unquestionably, be one step closer to a less safe, less free America. Perhaps we should change the historic Sword of Liberty into Styrofoam and see if that scares off the bad guys. While we're at it, why don't we make are nukes out of air fresher. That I'll show are enemies to fear us. Then the gun control laws would have us use cotton balls for bullets and build our tanks out of paper. O boy, don't you feel safer already!?
However, Progressive Collectivists do have their reasons for pushing controls on firearms and they are understandable arguments. It's just that in the grand scheme of things the arguments to ban guns becomes the argument to keep guns and that argument is protection. For notable instance, a common and rather non data-based, emotional, argument used by "Gun Grabbers" is that having guns in homes can kill children from accidental fire. The truth is yes, if you're not paying attention to your child many unfortunate things can happen. A baby will likely drown if left alone in the bathtub. Should we ban bathtubs because you have a possibility of having your child drown? Or, should we take the responsibility and say: "What was I thinking when I left my baby daughter alone in the bath without staying and making sure nothing would happen?" When you think about it, there is nothing in the world that is "safe" for babies. They can choke on, drown in, or die from anything. Most gun owners don't let unfortunate deaths by accidental fires happen, because they make sure that the weapons are locked away or presumably non-accessible by their children. In 2005, there were 789 reported deaths by accidental gun fire. This means that out of all the deaths of people living in America, less than ½% of the deaths were caused by accidental fire. The actual number was 0.3% for the percent of people killed from accidental discharge
The final, most common, and therefore excruciatingly boring, argument used by the Progressive, Collectivists is the idea that having guns in homes increases the likelihood of suicides. Most people tend not to take suicide lightly. The causes for suicide and the logical thought circulation of those that plot to kill themselves are different and/or too complicated to fully explain. A person doesn't usually have an ethical and/or logical reason for everything that they do. Or, it would seem so because they don't always take into account the effects of the future. There are common reasons for people to commit suicide that would be understandable. Still, suicide will always be the wrong conclusive decision.
The point I'm trying to make is that whether the reason is understandable or not, whether some can or can't be stopped, people will commit suicide and those that have made up their minds about it and are not stopped will find a way to kill themselves, with or without guns. For example, Japan is relatively a completely gun free country. However, they have twice as many suicides as America has. People in Japan just kill themselves in a different way. Collectivist logic would have us take away and destroy all bridges so that people wont jump off them. The people will just find another way to die. In the end it does nothing to help the rest of society and it harms everyone and guess what? No one was saved, either! Isn't that an astounding way to destroy ourselves, by saving no one, in the name of protection?
In conclusion, the Constitution and the Amendment Rights are the only things that preserve our Life, our Liberty, and our Pursuit of Happiness. I declare that as a people we must rise to our obligation in the protection and preservation of the things that keep us free. There are people out there now that are unknowingly destroying our freedom by trying to destroy the Amendment Rights. It's our turn to return that freedom and our future. Let we the people of the United States of America make it our priority to rise in support of a common defense. A defense in the name of the Second Amendment that may protect us from the enemies who come and infiltrate our homes. We must stop those who infringe upon our happiness, our liberty, and our freedom. We must rise and seize the opportunities that are before us. We must forge for ourselves a golden future that can't be stolen. We must create a community where robbers, mobs, and gangs will live in fear, for we have the Second Amendment and we also have the First Amendment which allows us the freedom to voice our jubilant words, even if it is against a thousand trumpets and a million trampling feet. This is our nation, this is our constitution, and these are two of our Amendment Rights and we won't let won't let them take them away!
Justice Scalia, (June 26,2008) opinion of the court. Dis. Of Columbia, ET AL., Petit. V. Dick A. Heller. Accessed 4-13-10 http://www.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Monitors Ed. Board (March 1,2010)McDonald V. Chicago Ruling on guns Accessed 4-13-10 csmonitor.com/.../In-McDonald-v.-Chic...
 Dissaster info.Board (January 1,2006) 789 accidental death by firearms Accessed 4-13-10 www.disastercenter.com/cdc/age%20adjusted%20deaths%20rates%20for%20113%...html
W.H.Organization (1950-January 1, 2006) rates of suicide in Japan combined. Accessed 4-21-10 www.who.int/mental_health/ media/japa.pdf.