
The Constitution is what this country was built off of and is the traditional way America is run and the laws we Americans follow. Among all of the amendments, there have been some altered in the past for better or worse. However, not every amendment can be changed that easily due to its magnitude. The Second Amendment is one of the most debated Amendments throughout the entire Constitution. From all of the debate 2 sides have formed. A push to keep the traditional views of America the same, followed by the side to fight for a reform and push more control over our Second Amendment Right. As Americans we have always had access to guns, in the past it has not caused big problems which is why a big push to keep things the same. But opposing their view is the push for a new Progressive side of Gun Control wanting to impose laws which "Infringes" our Second Amendment right. This side however, does deserve some credit because one of the main goals is to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on guns. Through the 2 sides of the argument a Political and Social divide has formed within the Nation. My goal through this argument is to produce a type of synthesis that is able to bring the sides together and stop the growth of this Political and Social divide. This is done by trying to produce a type of common grounds for Americans on either side to adopt. A group such as the NRA (National Rifle Association) is one that may be able to bring the two sides of the debate together and meet on common grounds. 

The traditional view of guns is very simple. Guns have been around for so long and have turned into a cultural thing for almost everyone. In the past the main purpose of guns was for hunting food to survive, protection from bad people, and protecting your own personal property. Now all of this still plays affect with guns in today's society at Political and Social levels which develops the magnitude of the division between the differing sides. The politics that go on behind guns is something that will never seem to be agreed upon. Too many states can't agree and come to a common consensus which is why Gun Laws still remain at the State Government Level which hasn't always been a bad thing. However, getting both governments on the same page through groups or organizations like the NRA they can seem to come agreement. Through articles and documents it has been proven that there can be political settlements which can smooth out some rough patches. These have helped the 2 sides of the argument form a synthesis where they can seemingly agree.

An example of the sides agreeing occurred in a case in New Hampshire where the political side came to an agreement to settle highly debated topic regarding education and possession of on guns. New Hampshire is a state that is similar to the south where there is not much requirements to get your hands on a gun. The article Reaching Across the Gun Divide in New Hampshire displayed the issue of the State Government at a divide. This started a controversy between both sides of the Government because supporters of each Republican or Democratic Party were fighting within their own party over this issue. This went on for a while until members of the NRA (National Rifle Association) came in and were able to bring the two sides together. They said that the best way to keep things the same but try and provide for each side of the argument is produce more education about guns so that people who haven't been exposed to guns can get the proper information to satisfy what they wanted. Also making some grasses a requirement enable to get certain guns such has hand guns and assault rifles. Now this may not solve all the issues but it does provide and outlet for people to look deeper into the topic and settle a growing state divide. Even though these cases are rare, it does show that it is possible which leads into the Social aspect of satisfying each party.

Americans have been granted access to guns for so long that it has been so deeply integrated into our culture. This reflects the Social level of guns. It used to be so much more acceptable to walk around with a gun but now it has seem to split people into 2 sides at the Social level. In a book written by John R. Lott, More Guns Less Crime displays how in places that still maintain the open carry law there is actually less crime that goes on compared to similar areas without that law. Although today's society doesn't have as much need to open carry all the time, it still proves the point that if people are armed there will naturally be less crime. However, on the social aspect of things not everyone is able to accept the open carry law which makes it hard to come to a common synthesis regarding this topic. But through the proper education the NRA provides, it can show people that it shouldn't be a feared subject when people are able to open carry.

Although there have been some advances in the Political and Social divide of guns there is still the side of the argument that wants Americans to have a more Progressive view on things. There have been so many pushes for the more Gun Control sides to become Progressive and change the way we've done these for such a long time. Although this may seem like a bad thing to most, there are some advantages that may occur. This however, needs to be agreed upon by both parties which will be able to let the two see eye to eye. 

As the country grows older it sees more and more change whether it's for the better or for the worse. Because of this, Progressive movements have started to form on so many topics that are constantly debated. One of the biggest movement for this Progressive America is the issues of gun control having Americans change the way they've been doing things for years. On a Political and Social level there is a push for more control over the way guns are handled opposed to the traditional ways that guns were handled. Whether it be laws imposed to limit or even eliminate the sales of certain guns, restrict certain people from getting access to guns, or a push for a more social satisfying way to please the Anti-Gun supporters, there is a Progressive movement to change the way things are done. This may not help the synthesis of the gun divide argument but if some of these views are adopted by the common grounds the divide may close.

Maryland a very large state that has been known for having gun owners and supporters, recently passed a law that terminated the sale of Assault Weapons in the state. This was the first of many states to try and impose that law. This reflects the progressive movement of more gun control at the political level by having states impose laws that "infringe" on the Second Amendment right as a citizen. The article Gun-Control Measures to Be Heard in MD Senate Committee demonstrates a law being passed that eliminates the sale of certain assault rifles. This may have been a good law passed for the immediate future but is only going to cause problems down the road, because people that were able to buy these in the past, are going to want to do anything in their power to get their hands back on these guns. When the senate finally started to see that this issue may arise, the senate was able to terminate the law passed because it stirred the Political divide too much. The termination of the law was seen in the Federal Appeal Court to Reconsider Maryland Gun Control Law which showed how the law was shot down after it had already been imposed. Although this law may have seemed to be a good idea at first, it shows how people can accept some progressive movements that allow for a new view on that topic but when it gets to intense that when they don't work. Along with the political aspect of a more progressive movement on the topic, comes the social aspect that makes people want to become more accepting of the movements.

The social divide continues to grow as people start organizations that show the progressive side to people and makes certain people want to side with these groups. Gabby Gifford a big supporter of more Gun Control attempted to push her Progressive ideas into a state that was full of cultural background of guns. In her article about her organization Gifford's Targets Minnesota for Gun Control Push, she displayed to a heavy culture of guns how they can accept these new regulations but still have the deep threaded culture of guns. She wanted to show how the people can accept new regulations that will take the guns out of the hands of the wrong people. Her ideas were well portrayed and would have been more socially accepted once it was shown how it can work. But if her push becomes too strong and more in depth than it was shown, there could create that bigger issue of the social divide. Although her push was only to keep guns in the hands of the sane people if there is any more magnitude to it, the synthesis may not be plausible if it upsets the wrong people. 

Not all gun laws are going to be accepted in the way that their supporters want them to which is what develops the large social and political divide. However if the progressive movements are displayed in the proper way, than it may show the possibility that the two sides can come to common beliefs. This will strengthen the common synthesis and allow the group such as the NRA to protect this movements and bring them to the proper view of the traditional belief.

Gun Control will be an issue that will continue to grow in our Nation with no end in sight. However, there does appear to be a way for Americans to come to a common synthesis by keeping the traditional way of guns but still have that progressive movement in a positive direction which will satisfying both sides of the argument. That way is through the educational groups formed to keep people up to date on safety, legality, and protection of guns, like the National Rifle Association. This group is set up as a non-profit organization started in 2008 which has made strides to fight to keep the Second Amendment the way it is. It strays away from any Political aspects and aims for more socially expecting ways for people to become more comfortable with guns and how they are handled.

The two sides of the synthesis can benefit from all of these up and coming groups that display positive education and views on guns.  Groups like this need time to develop and improve in places they know they struggle. The NRA specifically has 4.5 million members which is constantly growing at a faster and faster rate. It is able to shy away from areas like the Maryland senate that eliminated the sale of assault rifles but was then relooked at and eliminated when it was shown as unjust. And look more into social aspects that can create a solution to the social divide. This allows for gun enthusiast to follow behind the lead this group is taking. By providing the proper education on guns over time it is going to develop a better outlook on the debate. However, with the membership growing so rapidly comes the push back to be expected on such a group. This may be the answers but more supporters need to come in such as Colion Noir, a gun enthusiast who like myself wants more education on guns but is fighting to prevent the foreseeable future of gun control. In his video The Future of Gun Control, he helps strengthen the synthesis of the two sides. He shows that people can accept the new up and coming progressive movements, but also the new progressive movements need to appeal to the traditional view. Noir agrees with the views the NRA has and wants to push that onto the progressive party and eventually bring the two sides together. This will all help create the speed of guns becoming more controlled and allow for us to come to common agreements within the sides. 

The way things are heading now it appears that the government is going to keep taking away from our "Right to bear arms.." which will leave us empty handed. To stop this from happening groups like the NRA have to continue to fight for the rights of the people. Although it may seem like this is the answer to join the two sides, it's going to take more than one group to bring the people together. There can be several steps that citizens on either side of the debate can take to bring the two sides to a common synthesis. For the traditional views of gun control, Americans can start to accept the fact that we need more education on guns starting at a younger age and for people who aren't even interested in guns. Along with this the side needs to accept the fact that the wrong people are getting their hands on guns. The NRA provides this information but not everyone chooses to accept what they say. To counter this and show that it is necessary the progressive side needs to give up on getting rid of certain guns and look deeper into the issues that cause the problems from the guns. This side should take the steps of showing how they want to tighten certain areas but not make it too progressive which will dig into the other side and develop a problem. Also this side needs to accept the education imposed instead of trying to push for laws over education. Gun education has been proven to work and if this side chooses to accept it over laws then it can help each agree on a common synthesis which will only eliminate the issues that each side have with one another. 

If each side is able to accept their responsibilities then it may lead in to the proper conclusion that helps the two sides agree. It may not be very easy for these sides to agree and come to common grounds, but if they do take their assigned steps than maybe it can help the two accept what each want. To keep order, more groups like the NRA have to continue to their push and help each side agree. The synthesis will most likely become more accepting when each can step away from controversy and accept what it is exactly that each of them want.

