Gun Control

American history supports the fact that there is no freedom without the use of firearms. During the war of independence if the citizens of this country did not possess any guns, then everybody would be subjects of the crown and not free American citizens. Most of the “men” fighting for this country at the time were poor farm boys with no military skills or experience and outnumbered by their enemies. “At any given time, however, the American forces seldom numbered over 20,000; in 1781 there were only about 29,000 insurgents under arms throughout the country. The war was therefore one fought by small field armies” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2). Many lives were lost, many people were killed, but they were willing to do that and protected their country’s future by paying the ultimate price for freedom. Therefore, even though people use guns to kill people, it should be still our right to own a gun and protect ourselves. As the history shows, our freedom relies on the dependency of having that right. To support this right and to make it understandable for everybody, it was written as the second amendment of the United States constitution. As stated by the fifth Circuit court, “We hold ... that [the Second Amendment] protects the rights of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons" (Therman). Therefore, as each individual in this country has the right to speak freely, then he or she also has the right to bear a gun and protect what is most

Important, that is life itself. This is one of the civil rights of this country; it should not be taken away from anybody.

There are people, which intend to harm others, steal and do not respect this or any other written law of this country and therefore they are not respectful citizens, no they are subjects. This is where law-abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property, especially when the hands of law are tied. Unfortunately, some of the laws are so strict that they are more beneficial for the ones that tend to break them instead of protecting the ones who are the most vulnerable, the victims. There are many incidents that support this theory and as Williamsen stated, “After Tashia Lovelace ran into her verbally and physically abusive estranged husband at a high-school graduation, he called her several times that day and told her that he was going to kill her. When he entered the mobile home, she began firing her pistol at him, striking him five times before he fell to the floor. She was home with three children at the time of the incident” ( Williamson 2). The law was not unwilling but unable to protect Tashia Lovelace and her three children. A threat is just a threat