Over the past couple years many current events have unfolded shining light and debate upon gun control in the United States. The recent tragedies of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and San Bernardino shooting that took place have once again sparked the argument over gun restriction and reform. Gun restrictions were first created from historical events that have consequently limited Americans access of their second amendment right, the right to bear arms. Michael Shalhope quotes the Second Amendment from the Constitution in "History of the Constitution", as he 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," (Shalhope n.p). The restriction act of 1934 was the first gun regulation act that had an impact large enough to create controversy. As described in "History of Gun Regulation" from the Washington post these 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 n.p). Since the first laws were passed restricting gun privileges, more than ten other major laws have been passed that significantly control regulation, (History of Gun Regulation n.p). Although there are already many restrictions in place impacting regulation, society still argues over more and less restriction. The liberal party tends to prefer stricter gun control policies while the conservative party prefers less gun control. Liberals believe restriction and reduction of firearms in the country will led to less gun violence, whereas conservatives believe the government cannot restrict its citizen's second amendment rights, and that by reducing guns will in turn actually increase violence. By researching gun reform in the United States from many government articles and scholarly journals of this political topic, it can be understood 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, liberal gun reform policies will infringe on constitutional rights and prevent law abiding citizens from stopping crime. Therefore, the government should utilize the conservative concepts of gun reform and reduce the amount of gun restrictions already placed on Americans. 

Liberal opposition to conservative views should be respected and discussed. Liberals prefer more gun restriction because they claim that too many guns causes too much violence. In an article from the Office of Press Secretary of the White House state, "Over the past decade in America, more than 100,000 people have been killed as a result of gun violence. Over the same period, hundreds of thousands of other people in our communities committed suicide with a gun and nearly half a million people suffered other gun injuries," (Fact Sheet n.p). However, uneducated on the subject, American's don't realize that the majority of gun deaths are intentional suicides. In Jacob Davidson's article "A Criminologist's Case Against Gun Control" he argues, "People should also be aware that most gun-related deaths are suicides, not murders. There are twice as many suicides in the U.S. by guns as there are homicides and I think most people find that very surprising," (Davidson n.p). The numbers are nevertheless high for the amount of violent crime that occurs in our country. Another liberal opposition is to reduce the amount of guns in the country. The liberals have held this view because it seems that the less amount of guns would reduce violence. According to David Graham and his article "Why Conservatives Mistrust Even Modest Efforts at Gun Control" the same gun violence situations occurred in Australia and they had a massive gun buy-back. "After a 1996 massacre in Port Arthur, Australia significantly tightened its laws. The legislation "outlawed automatic and semi-automatic rifles, as well as pump-action shotguns. A nationwide gun buyback scheme also saw more than 640,000 weapons turned in to authorities. Obama may personally think confiscating guns is a great idea, but there's no prospect that he could get such a policy enacted into law -- and if he did, the Supreme Court's recent precedents on the Second Amendment make it unlikely the law would stand," (Graham n.p). The thought that the less amount of guns laying around the country would reduce the chances of these weapons being stole and used in crime. These are import views to take in account but not entirely effective in stopping violence throughout American and helping the issue of gun reform. 

First, the conservative gun reform policy should advocate for keeping guns in the hands of lawful citizens. Current and future gun restriction laws are being designed to keep guns out of the hands of citizens who deserve these privileges and lawfully carry. In Katie McLaughlin's article, Ted Nugent describes a strong conservative view regarding the government taking away guns from Americans, "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," (McLaughlin n.p). Although Nugent clearly and harshly expresses his views on disarming citizens from their guns, what he voices is a favorable conservative view. No one shall be allowed to take away guns from a law abiding citizen. This leaves them helpless in an altercation that could have been prevented if the citizen had their means of protection. These gun free zones Nugent mentions are the most common spots where gun attacks are likely occur because no one can defend themselves, they have been restricted of their rights and protection. His solution to the problem is to not vote for congressman who opt to disarm citizens, so in turn they will never be reelected for this reason. According to Jacob Sullum, from his article "Self-help for Soft Targets", President Obama presented a speech after the San Bernardino massacre in which he state's there is only one conclusion to reform. "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 n.p). The people who support more gun control tend to reject the belief that armed citizens can prevent shooters. There have been many cases where armed citizens have been able to prevent or stop a shooter from inflicting harm. "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 n.p). Obama's proposals cannot protect citizens against a gun man who openly fires into a crowd of helpless citizens. Current laws prevent criminals from buying firearms, however citizens will no criminal record can a still acquire guns and harm 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 upholding the second amendment right of the United States constitution. As gun violence continues to occur, more and more liberal perspectives will push for harder gun reform, affecting the American people and altering with their second amendment right. Many of the 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. Regulations are more reasonable as a means of 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 "Democrats Introduce a Bill to Ban Assault Weapons" he provides this information on this weapon ban, "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 n.p). This infringes on the rights of the second amendment because it prevents law abiding citizens from purchasing different types of guns. Although the assault rifle is as lethal as your average hunting rifle, liberal persuasion has placed a ban on this type of gun. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were created insuring that citizens would never be rejected their rights. Nugent again expresses his views in McLaughlin's article, "Ted Nugent: 'More Guns Equals Less Crime." "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 n.p). The assault weapon ban is just one of the many laws that infringe on the second amendment and restrict citizens from their privileges. 

Lastly, conservative gun reform promotes the ideas that guns provide individuals the right to defend themselves. Firearms have three major purposes: recreational use, war-time use, and defense of oneself against threats of criminals or tyranny. Liberal policy promotes the loss of self-protection because they pursue to reduce the amount of guns or place harder restrictions on them. Liberals who have never handled a gun seem frightened of the danger they may cause not realizing how much protection they provide.  Princeton Survey Research Associates International conducted surveys questioning citizens on this concept in their article, "Why Own a Gun? Protection Is Now Top Reason" stating, "Gun owners increasingly cite protection as the main reason they own a gun. And a large percentage (79%) say having a gun makes them feel safer. Relatively few people in gun-owning households  --  either gun owners or non-gun-owners --  say having a gun in the home makes them feel uncomfortable. Just 7% of gun owners and 9% of non-gun owners living in gun households say having a gun in the home makes them feel uncomfortable.," (Why Own a Gun n.p). Keith Clark an expert in the field also had this to say about protection in his article "Gun Policy in the United States: 225 Years of Inactivity" stating, "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 n.p). When a citizen's means of protection is taken away they have no way of defending themselves and become vulnerable to an attack. 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 n.p). Also, the banning "military-like" rifles would similarly prevent safety and security. As Representative Janice Hahn explains her views on this issue in Tim Devaney article "Democrats Introduce a Bill to Ban Assault Weapons", she understands why a military assault rifle helps 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 n.p). She realizes the dangers these weapons can cause and considers people should own these to protect themselves against the dangers they many encounter. It is imperative that a citizen can own an assault rifle as defense for himself/herself in their home as it helps to discourages robberies and assaults. If an intruder was aware that the homeowner owned an assault rifle or gun, the amount of crime that would be prevented even before the break in occurred would be extremely high, (Schulman n.p). Americans use their firearms around 2.5 million times a year to in confrontation with a criminal, (Schulman n.p). Defense in and away from your home is a vital reason why conservative gun control must be pursued. 

An obvious solution to gun violence that could please everyone involves incorporating conservative gun polices with a small influence of liberal policy. Sally Kohn provides information over background checks that both parties agree with in her article, "Who Wants Background Checks? Most Republicans." She says, "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," (Kohn n.p). Considering this, it isn't that conservatives are against background checks for the purchasing of guns, they believe background checks will make the purchasing of firearms safer for everyone. This should more heavily regulated and implemented into the process of owning a gun. Besides the only point about background checks, conservative policies that protect the right of the second amendment, keep guns in the hands of lawful citizens, and provide individuals the right to protect themselves are what should be pushed for in congress. During elections, citizens must vote for the representatives that will protect citizen's rights. This final quote from Ted Nugent in Katie McLaughlin's article claims 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 n.p).

In conclusion, the government should initiate 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 and prevent law abiding citizens from stopping crime. This is important to the American public for preserving rights and the freedoms to protect themselves. America was founded on the principles that preserve its citizen's rights. The government should not restrict the rights of its citizens. When the government changes the simplest rights every citizen is claimed to have in the Bill of Rights, than it seems the American people are not provided free rights. The citizens of America must protect their second amendment right to bear arms hence protecting the liberties and principles of freedom making sure they are never taken away. It is possible that someday this country will need to revolt against its own government and to do this Americans must protect their right to bear arms. Congress must once again protect the second amendment right and give back the liberties and freedoms that were granted to citizens. 

