Gun control in America.

I look forward to hearing your opinions. Almost 290 people a day become victims of gun violence in the US, and this adds up to over 100,000 people a year. Someone dies from gun violence across the country every seventeen minutes. In the single year of 2010, almost 10,000 more kids were injured from firearms in the US than soldiers were from the war in Afghanistan. These statistics are frightening, and to think that our country has done nothing about it baffles me. (. http://usnews.nbcnews.com...) I will come right out and say that I believe we should eventually ban all guns. Guns banned = thousands of lives saved. Unfortunately, this is my ideal world. I know it would be nearly impossible to ban guns completely and so suddenly in the US at this point in time. So instead, I will go for the compromise- initiating background checks and training for all firearms, a complete ban of automatic weapons, and a ban of open carry in all fifty states. This is what I plan to argue for in our debate. Since a key argument point in this debate is the second amendment, I will start by taking a look at this right in our constitution. 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. " That is one confusing sentence. .. one that could easily be misunderstood by many. Let's break it apart piece by piece. "A well regulation militia," Militia was the name for the soldiers, otherwise known as the US citizens fighting for their independence, who fought in the Revolutionary War. The precise dictionary definition of militia is "a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency; a body of citizens organized for military service. " ". .. being necessary to the security of a free state," This means that our militias were needed to fight for our freedom and democracy, or else we would still be a British colony under the monarch rule. ". .. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " This particular phrase is where the debate gets sticky. If you look at this phrase in grammatical terms in relation to the first part of the sentence, the meaning is a bit clearer. You see, the first statement about the militia is modifying the clause immediately following it (about how it is necessary to the freedom of the state). In other words, you could take out the first section, and the sentence would still read gramatically correct. Without the modifier, the sentence reads, "Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bears arms, shall not be infringed. " When the sentence is read like this, it sounds like it is giving everyone the right to bear arms to protect their freedom. This is the ground that my opponent's side stands on. But that first modifier is there, so we must not ignore it. It is saying that the well regulated militia, the army that defended our country against Great Britian, the army made up of colonsits, is necessary to protecting our freedom, and therefore, the people/the citizens in that militia have a right to bear arms that shall not be infringed upon. Remember that this constitution was written immediately following a major war when people still had to be on guard for outside attacks. If our founding fathers came back today, I do not think they would want us all carrying guns around just to be prepared if a suspicious guy walks towards us. (. http://www.law.cornell.edu...) (. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I want to reinstate that this is my understanding of the second ammendement, and I know that people are still going to argue for their gun rights. I respect that. This is why my biggest hope is to initiate background checks and training. General proceedings to keep the public safe do not infringe on second ammendment rights. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear, for you will still be able to own your gun. The government just wants to prevent mentally ill people or alleged criminals from getting their hands on firearms and make sure you can use your guns properly, so no accidental shootings happen. Stop me if I'm missing something, but what do you see as wrong with this? Also, I believe that automatic and semi automatic weapons should be banned completely. The definition of an automatic weapon (or machine gun) is a relatively heavy, rapid-firing small arm that can provide continuous or frequent bursts of automatic fire until their ammunition is expended. They were used for wars dating back to the American Civil War, but they became widely known and used starting with World War I. Automatic weapons are preferable for armies because they shoot so frequently that the target has next to no time to escape flying bullets. .. perfect for attacking enemy lineups. So what is an automatic weapon's one and only purpsoe? To kill. Something made purely to kill has no place with gun sellers. You have no reason to own a gun that can shoot up to one hundred bullets per minute for "self defense. " Therefore, automatic and semi automatic weapons should be restricted to only trained, military personnel. (. http://go.galegroup.com... |CX2400600762&docType=GALE)Finally, we need to put an end to open cary. Open carry basically means that people are allowed to carry their guns openly into public places (restaurants, shops, entertainment centers, etc). Did you know that fourty four states allow open carry? Thirty allow it without a permit, and fourteen more allow it with. Fourty four states. We saw a man walk into a movie theatre carrying a gun, and then he open fired in the middle of the movie, killing twelve people. We saw a man walk into an elementary school carrying a gun, and then he open fired and killed twenty small children and six adults. Yet we still find it necessary to openly carry our guns in public? What's more, after all these shootings, states are making new legislations allowing more people to walk into open places carrying a gun. Take Georgia for example. In April earlier this year, they passed new laws allowing open carry in schools and churches. What reason do you need a gun in church? So after all these shootings we are seeing, we think our best solution to prevent people from guns is to put more guns in the public? Where is the logic behind this? Some students now even carry bullet proof pads to school just in case. Is this how we want to be raising our children? We are turning into a nation ruled by guns. (. http://my.opencarry.org...) (. http://www.cnn.com...)While I fully understand that you respect your rights, can we just put the safety of our people, our children, our innocent victims in mind? Do we want to turn into that Hunger Games like society where we are soldiers, all walking around with guns for defense while the poor scramble to save themselves? Do we want our kids to grow up in fear of being victimized by gun violence? Do we want criminals to be able to easily get their hands on an automatic weapon only to kill tens of people later the next day? Think about the dangers. Think about how we can promote safety. I know you want your rights, but we have to keep the good of the people in mind. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing my oponent's side of the argument.