“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.” The second amendment is one of issues that has caused the most debate in American politics. Starting with Rachel Maddow on the far left and all the way to Bill O’ Reily on the far right, everyone seems to have their own opinion on what regulations and restrictions should be placed on the purchase and possession of guns. Increased gun control will increase safety and security for American citizens.

            The current legislation on the purchase of guns states that all licensed gun dealers have to run background checks on all people who buy guns, at first look this law seems sufficient to keep people who shouldn’t have access to guns from acquiring them, however this system is deeply flawed and not properlely enforced. According to the Obama administration, 40% of all guns are purchased without a background check. This means that felons and people with dangerous mental illnesses can easily access a guns.  In order help reduce this problem, a universal background check needs to be implemented. Such a background check would help to ensure that more than 60% of gun owners have to go through a background check when purchasing guns. Such a universal background check would also ensure that all background checks performed meet a certain standard so that felons and other people unsuited to have guns are prevented from having them.

            Anyone who knows me knows that Ronald Reagan and I don’t share similar views, especially on the issue of gun control because historically Ronald Reagan had some of the most conservative views about gun control. However, even Ronald Reagan, along with 70% of NRA members, and 90 % of the American public agrees that military level weapons and high capacity magazines shouldn’t be legal. Weapons like these have the sole purpose of firing lethal shots and rapid succession and the sole purpose of this is to kill and harm as many people as possible. The right to own such a killing machine shouldn’t be put above the threat that these weapons pose to people, like the 26 people killed in the Sandy Hooke Massacre.

            I’m writing this speech on the Nation Bill of Rights day, which is fitting because the main argument made against increasing gun control is that it violates the second amendment. However, all rights all rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. Individual rights are found in the Bill of Rights, but individual rights end where other people’s rights start. For example, the first amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, however this right is not absolute, and the freedom of speech is restricted through things like when the Supreme Court ruled in the case Chaplinsky vs. Virginia that the freedom of speech doesn’t cover words used to instigate a fight. The right to freedom of speech does not extend to “fighting words” because it infringes on other peoples right to safety. This shows how limits are successfully placed on individual rights just like more limits needs to be placed on the purchase of guns. A higher priority absolutely cannot be placed on the right to own guns than is placed on the value of the countless lives that gun violence effects.

"American Civil Liberties Union." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.

"United States Free Speech Exceptions." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Nov. 2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.