The recent years many current events have unfolded shining light and much debate on gun control in the United States. Recent tragedies that occurred have once again sparked the issue over gun restriction and reform. The first gun restrictions were created based on historical events that now prevent Americans limited access to their second right, the right to bear arms. The restriction act of 1934 was the first reform gun act that had a large enough impact to create controversy. As described in History of Gun Regulation from the Washington post this acts were, "Spurred by the bloody "Tommy gun" era ushered in by Al Capone. One part of it is the National Firearms Act of 1934, the first federal gun-control law, which levies a restrictive $200 tax on the manufacture or sale of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. All sales were to be recorded in a national registry," (History of Gun Regulation). Since the first laws were passed restricting guns privileges, more than ten other major laws have been passed that greatly control national gun regulation. (History of Gun Regulation). Although there are already many restrictions in place, society still argue over more and less restriction. The liberal party tends to choose more gun control while the conservative group is against gun control. Liberals believe that the restriction and reduction of firearms in the country will led to less gun violence, whereas the conservatives believe that the government cannot restrict its citizen's second amendment rights and reducing guns will in turn, actually increase violence. By researching gun reform in the United States from many government journals and experts of this political topic, it can be seen that conservative policies advocate for positive reform: keeping guns in the hands of lawful citizens, upholding constitutional rights in accordance of the second amendment, and providing individuals the right to defend themselves. Whereas, the liberal gun reform policies will infringe on constitutional rights, prevent law abiding citizens from stopping crime, and having no positive impact on the homicide rate. Therefore, the government should take the conservative concepts of gun reform and reduce the amount of gun restrictions already placed on Americans. 

First, the conservative gun reform policy should advocate for keeping guns in hands of lawful citizens. Current and future gun restriction laws will be designed to keep guns out of the hands of citizens who rightfully carry deserve these privileges. In Katie McLaughlin's article, Ted Nugent describes a very strong conservative view dealing with taking away guns from the American citizen. "Anybody that wants to disarm me can drop dead. Anybody that wants to make me unarmed and helpless, people that want to literally create the proven places where more innocents are killed called gun-free zones, we're going to beat you. We're going to vote you out of office or suck on my machine gun," (McLaughlin). Although Nugent is out there in what he utters it seems to be a pretty favorable conservative view. No one shall be allowed to take guns out of a law abiding citizens hands and cause them to become helpless in an altercation. The gun free zones he also mentions are actually the most predominate places where gun attacks occur because no one can defend themselves, they have been restricted of their rights. Congressman who opt to disarm citizens will not be elected for this reason. According to Jacob Sullum, in President Obama's speech that he presented after the San Bernardino massacre, Obama is only subject to one conclusion. "His proposals for new restrictions on firearms move in the opposite direction, based on the assumption that the problem is too many guns in too many hands," (Sullum). The people who support of gun control tend to reject the belief that armed citizens can prevent unlikely shooters. There have been many case in which armed citizens have been able to prevent or stop an unlikely shooter from acting. "Last October, UCLA law professor and Washington Post blogger Eugene Volokh listed 10 cases where bystanders used firearms to disable, detain, or scare away gunmen who had shot people or threatened to do so. The examples included a Mississippi high school principal, a Philadelphia barbershop customer, a Colorado Springs churchgoer, and a Chicago Uber driver." (Sullum). Even with current laws preventing criminals from buying firearms, citizens will no criminal record can a still acquire guns and harm other citizens, Obama's proposals cannot protect a gun man who openly firing into a crowd of helpless citizens. Men and woman who lawfully carry a firearm will be able to prevent and protect those who can't protect themselves. Eliminating citizens from their ability to have guns will greatly endanger society.

Second, the conservative gun reform promotes to uphold the constitutional rights in accordance of the second amendment of the constitution of the United States. As gun violence continues to occur, more and more liberal perspectives on gun reform will affect the American citizens of their second amendment right. Many of our freedoms that entail the right to bear arms have already been distorted, restricting the use and sale of firearms. Liberal views entail restrictions to gun control rather than a complete ban of all firearms. I agree that regulations are much more reasonable to gun restriction than a complete removal of guns. However, many liberal gun restriction views infringe with the second amendment because they call for certain common weapons to be illegal to buyers. In Tim Devaney's article regarding the limitations on assault weapons he provides this information, "The Assault Weapons Ban of 2015 introduced Wednesday by Cicilline would target semi-automatic and other military-style guns. It would ensure that no such weapons are manufactured for consumer use, while placing new restrictions on the sale of already existing assault weapons," (Devaney). This infringes on the rights of the second amendment because it prevents a law abiding citizen from purchasing a type of gun, although it is as lethal as your average hunting rifle. We constitution and Bill of Rights were created so citizens would never be rejected their rights. Nugent again expresses his views in McLaughlin's article. "The U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights outlines an experiment where freedom rules the day of individuality and that that can only be secured by crushing those enemies that would take it away." (McLaughlin) This is just one of the many views and laws that infringe on the second amendment and prevent citizens from their own rights. 

Lastly, conservative gun reform promotes the ideas that guns provide individuals the right to defend themselves. Firearms have three major purposes to them: recreational use, war-time use, and defense of oneself against threats of intruders or threats of tyranny. The liberal gun policy debates to remove the right of self-protection when they claim to reduce the amount of guns in the country or place restrictions on firearms. Liberals who have never handled a gun seem frightened of the danger they may cause.  Keith Clarke expresses this concept in his article, "For gun control advocated, a fear of violence too easily morphs into a fear of rednecks, then gun owners in general," (Clarke). Limiting the amount of guns would not make it any safer to the public. "A vast majority of gun owners associate their firearms with a feeling of safety and a sense of agency or ability to resist evil, be it government tyranny or invading criminals," (Clarke). When a citizen's right of protection is taken away they have no means of defending themselves and become vulnerable to an attack. As Clarke states again, "the threat of taking away guns from these people therefore translates into a feeling of invasion and being made personally less safe," (Clarke). Also, banning "military-like" rifles would similarly prevent the right to defend oneself. As Representative Janice Hahn explains her views on this issue in Tim Devaney article, she understands why a military assault rifle helps to protect the citizen. "The assault weapons we're talking about today are not just any guns," Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.) told reporters. "They're not only for hunting, they're not only for target practice. These are weapons of war, designed to inflict the maximum amount injury. I understand people want to protect themselves in their homes," (Devaney). She realizes the dangers these weapons can cause and believes people should own these to protect themselves against the dangers they many encounter. It is important that a citizen can practice his right of owning an assault rifle to continue to defend himself in his home because it discourages robberies and assaults from occurring. If an intruder was aware that the homeowner owned an assault rifle, the amount of crime that would be prevented even before the break in occurred would be very high. Defending one's self in his/ her home is a very vital reason why conservative gun control must be pursued. 

In conclusion, the government should implicate the conservative ideas of gun reform and reduce the amount of gun restrictions and burdens on the American citizens. Conservative policies push for positive reform that will keep guns in the hands of lawful citizens, uphold constitutional rights in accordance of the second amendment, and provide individuals the right to defend themselves. Whereas, the liberal gun reform policies will infringe on constitutional rights, prevent law abiding citizens from stopping crime, and have no positive impact on the homicide rate. This is important to the American public for preserving our rights and the freedoms to protect ourselves. America is built on the foundation preserving its citizen's rights which the government is not supposed to interfere with. When the government messes with the basic rights every citizen is claimed to have, than what rights do citizens really possess? We, the citizens of America, must protect our second amendment right to bear arms so our liberties and principles of freedom are never taken away. It is possible that someday this country will need to revolt its own government and to do this we must protect our right to keep our guns. In congress bills must be passed once again protecting the second amendment right. An obvious solution to gun violence that would seem to please everyone would involve incorporating conservative gun polices with the small influence of liberal policy. Sally Khan provides information over background checks that both parties heavily agree with. "Polls show a strong majority of Americans  --  including 87% of Republicans and 84% of gun owners  --  believe background checks should be required for gun purchases made," (Khan). This being said it isn't that conservatives are against background checks for the purchasing of guns they believe these will make the purchasing of firearms safer for everyone. This should more heavily regulated and implemented into the process of owning a gun. Besides this only point, conservative policies that protect the right of the second amendment, keeping guns in the hands of lawful citizens, and providing individuals the right to protect themselves are what should be pushed for in congress. Vote for the representatives that will protect the rights of citizens. Understand this quote from Ted Nugent in Katie McLaughlin article and realize that America will be safer implementing the conservative gun control policy. "Where you have the most armed citizens in America, you have the lowest violent crime rate. Where you have the worst gun control, you have the highest crime rate," (McLaughlin).

