Gun Control:

The anti-gun view is mostly associated with the Democratic party, but it is not limited to this group.  There has been a rise in the past few years of people that claim to be against unlimited gun usage.  This increase is partially due to the horrific tragedies that have taken place recently in the United States.

Murderous rampages such as the incidents in Aurora Colorado and Newtown Connecticut have anti-gun groups pushing harder than ever for guns to be outlawed throughout the country.

While most believe that illegalizing all types of guns in the U.S. is against the 2nd amendment’s right to bear arms, anti-gun groups claim that the 2nd amendment does not give citizens the right to keep and bear arms, but only allows for the state to keep a militia (National Guard).

Basically, Anti-gun groups believe that if the government limits guns to law enforcement agencies and the military, violence will decrease dramatically.  Therefore, the common notion that Anti-gun groups are against all violence of any kind is not all together true.  Many people associated with the anti-gun policy support necessary war and protection of U.S. citizens through the threat of a gun, but only if that gun is being used by the “right” person.

There are many associations that are looking for ways to limit the dangers of a gun, but only anti-gun groups are fully against public use of guns.  This means that people associated with the anti-gun group would be against hunting and gun ranges even with all the safety regulations already in place.

Many anti-gun activists take such a strong stance because they believe that U.S. citizens have given up their rights to own guns due to previous travesties that have involved firearms.

Some of the most prominent organizations that have these same beliefs are the handgun Control Inc., the Brady Campaign, the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Freedom States Alliance group.  Most of these groups’ main goal is to reduce gun violence in America, but they believe that banning guns is the most effective way of doing this, unlike many other middle of the ground gun control organizations.

Many of these anti-gun groups take strong stances against groups that defend people’s rights to own guns.  At anti-gun rallies, hundreds of signs can be seen that blame the National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) for the deaths of people that were murdered in national tragedies involving guns.

Many signs have photos of children that have been killed in gun tragedies, and the people holding the signs will blame those that protect guns rather than the shooter.  These actions are what separate anti-gun groups from every other gun group.  This group takes very radical measures to get their beliefs out and ban the use of guns throughout the United States.

While the middle ground on gun control is made up of both liberals and some conservatives, those that prefer banning guns is almost entirely a liberal point of view.  No other group is willing to take away the second amendment right to bear arms, but many liberals take after Dianne Feinstein, U.S. senator, who said that “Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.”

The fundamental principles of anti-gun groups is to create a safer world for all U.S. Citizens. The way they hope to create this safety separates them from all other political groups. Their radical agenda is like no other, and in recent events their cause has only greatened leading to an even great amount of U.S. politicians and citizens pushing for a world without guns.

Middle Ground:

A hot topic in Washington has become the issue of gun control.  Conservatives and Liberals have opposing opinions on what should be done in the aftermath of many tragedies involving guns.  The most prominent opinions in Washington have to do with whether stricter regulations for guns should be allowed or not.

Most progressives, including President Obama, are in favor of stricter regulations for firearms in the hope that it could save American lives from tragedies similar to what occurred in Newtown Connecticut.

A common notion of associations that are in favor of new gun control rules is that Americans do have the right to bear arms, but the 2nd amendment’s right to own a gun is not absolute and can be negotiated.

Many have come to this conclusion because they believe that controlling the distribution of guns could ultimately save lives.  Some of the new regulations that many liberals hope to pass on guns involve requiring national licenses for all handguns and if possible rifles and shotguns, requiring state licenses in addition to national licenses, banning military style firearms, requiring stricter background checks on all gun owners, and banning the more fatal equipment used by gun users.

The main goal behind these rules would be to lessen the likely hood of national tragedies involving guns occurring in the future.

Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the United States, was and still is a strong supporter of regulating gun use.  In one of his speeches he summed up the feelings of many gun control activists by saying that “When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly …. When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it.”

While Conservatives argue that te second amendment is not a negotiable subject, most liberals look towards the saying of Clinton and agree that new regulations need to come about because they believe it will increase the safety for Americans.

As of now, Obama is in the center of all negotiations on gun control laws. Obama’s overall belief is that “we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are mentally ill.”

The President’s main goal is to limit the dangers that arise when the “wrong person” has a dangerous fire arm.  He has recently taken action on this issue and hopes to please his fellow liberal followers by continually decreasing the freedoms that certain Americans have when it comes to guns.

Many people share the views of President Obama and hope to regulate the use of guns. In a recent Pew Research Center Poll Americans said it was more important to control gun ownership than to protect gun rights.  In the poll 51 percent favored regulations to the 45 percent that believed in protecting gun rights.

Overall, the middle ground on gun control believes that U.S. citizens do have the right to bear arms.  They are different than the radical gun control activists that promote a United States where guns are only used in the military or federal agencies, and they are different than the conservative pro-gun activists that fight for the supremacy of the second amendment.  The middle ground hopes to find a balance between these two groups by limiting gun use but not banning it all together.

Gun Rights Activist:

Americans in all parts of the nation use guns every single day. A farm country father may take his boy to learn how to shoot clay pigeons. A waitress in St. Louis may carry a handgun in her purse for self protection. But every once in a while, a gun falls into the hands of a man or woman who does not have good intentions. A gun is inarguably powerful, and when used incorrectly has disastrous consequences.

2nd Amendment supporters largely understand this fact. The National Rifle Association sees gun safety education as the first step to stopping deaths by guns.

Heidi Cifelli, manager of the National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle Gun Safe Program, a children’s gun safety program, argues that knowing proper gun handling procedure is the best way to eliminate many risks associated with firearms.

“Gun education is not mandatory in any state as far as we know, but of course we think all schools should have it,” said Cifelli. “Gun education is the best way to save young lives.”

The NRA system teaches kids in grades K-6 to “Stop. Don’t Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult,” when they see a gun, sometimes using an Eddie Eagle mascot.

Of course, gun safety education does little to stop the horrific mass shootings that have prompted the national discussion on gun control. The NRA’s solutions for school safety are radically different from current proposals.

According to USA Today, 70% of public schools do not have a police officer; more than half have no security staff. The NRA has proposed putting armed security in every public school in the country.

“When you’re dealing with an armed assailant bent on harming people, the best defense you have is a person who is trained and armed to deal with that situation,” said Mo Canady, executive director of the National Association of School Resource Officers.

Critics have said focusing on school shootings and armed officers would not stop random acts of violence, and could have a detrimental effect on schools. But the NRA still believes their plan would be the most effective in preventing school shootings.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” said NRA executive vice president Wayne La Pierre.

The other main proposal for dealing with mass shootings is to deal with mental health problems often associated with violence. At least 38 of the 61 mass shooters in the past three decades “displayed signs of mental health problems prior to the killings.” Acute paranoia, delusions, and depression were rampant among them, with at least 36 of the killers committing suicide on or near the scene.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits gun sales to individuals who have been committed to a mental institution or “adjudicated as a mental defective.” However, background checks for the mentally ill are hobbled by ACLU court cases and fear of lawsuit, so they are sporadically enforced.

Gun rights activists also see gun-free zones, the typical response to school shootings as worsening the problem. Economist John Lott argues that gun-free zones have a direct link to mass shootings, saying, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.”

The NRA has argued that a gun-free zone attracts killers, and that it often acts as an invitation for violence.