Founded on the principle of the right to bear arms with personal safety at stake, the United States branded a culture that many were proud to be a part of as they protected their kin and State. As this culture has evolved with the changing times, the United States developed a gun rights and violence epidemic that is sweeping the country. It has become far too easy for malicious individuals to buy a firearm, subverting the legal system: further amassing the failure of the current system. The abuse of the gun loop hole and many other factors has led to mass shootings, terrorists’ attacks and sky-rocketing homicide rates. These facets have caused a stalemate between the two bipartisan groups leaving them with one option: compromise. In order for this to happen, our current legislators must pass efficient gun control measures that will not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens and ensure the safety of the American people, while keeping their sense of liberty intact.

The gun control debate has quickly become one the most pressing issues for both Republicans and Democrats, as history has brought us to a point where considerations cannot be reconciled. As both parties strive for a safer America it seems to be easier said than done. Republicans who oppose gun control, believe that restricting firearms violates their rights endowed by the constitution while jeopardizing their protection. They heavily rely on supreme court cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming those rights in the constitution, as well as “recognizing the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. Also including the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration” (Woolley 13). Those in favor, such as Democrats, believe that a low supply of weapons will lead to less gun related crimes thus pointing America away from leading the world in gun related deaths. They also stated in their Democratic platform that “We need to preserve Americans' Second Amendment right to own and use firearms, while that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation” (Wasserman 3). This and the addition to existing laws such as background checks and furthering common sense improvements, is what the democrats built their foundational policy on. As both sides varied in beliefs, the bipartisan divide quickly led to gridlock with no way of resolving the issue at hand. 

In order for change to be made both parties need to compromise and universally accept certain laws. One law that should be accepted across the board is the no buy list of suspected terrorists. Recently demonstrated in Orlando, Florida terrorists have shown they don’t need “airplanes to kill masses of people, instead common place firearm vendors” (Winkler 2).  Federal law prohibits felons, drug addicts, the mentally ill and people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from possessing firearms. “Nothing, however, prevents a suspected terrorist from walking into a gun store and buying as many guns as he wants” (Winkler 6).  Many Islamic terrorists have become well aware of this loop hole in the system and have attributed to the “200 people on the terrorist watch list that legally bought guns from federally licensed dealers in 2010” (Winkler 7). After the attacks in 2011 the government has kept suspected terrorists from boarding airplanes by placing them on no-fly lists. Isn’t it time we have a no buy list? 

Although advocated by both the Obama and George W. Bush administrations, the adoption of such thing, has been boldly opposed by the National Rifle Association. The gun lobbyist argue that this would give too much power to the attorney general and his discretion of who should be on this list. “No one should be deprived of constitutional rights on the shaky ground that the attorney general merely suspects the person might be a terrorist” (Gupta 2). This is why Congress should authorize no-buy lists but mandate that appropriate protections be put in place. Keeping the fourth amendment intact, the attorney general must have probable cause to search and seize, along with sufficient evidence of wrongdoing. Once upheld, the attorney general must provide the court with the evidence. Only after concluding the Attorney General has probable evidence, the court will approve the denial or acceptance of the suspected terrorists right to buy a gun. By keeping this outcome secret, it will deny the person an opportunity to rebut the evidence, but the courts also do the same thing with search warrants and wiretaps for criminal suspects.  Gupta asserts, Our right to bear arms is no more fundamental than our right to privacy, and treating these rights similarly can help keep us safer from terrorists. 

In the right hands firearms have proven to be very efficient in forestalling brutality and maintaining the law. It is crucial that legislators furthermore allow law-abiding citizens to purchase legal firearms but find the right balance in doing so legally and safe, while keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. In order to achieve this balance, the first step is to implement universal background checks on all gun sales. Currently the 1998 background checking system only “requires licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks” (Robyn 13).  That means that millions of guns are exchanged each year without a check, most often at gun shows or through private sellers. The law center to prevent gun violence stated that in a study, “the private-party gun market has been recognized as the leading source of guns used in crimes” (Robyn 16). Private party sellers understand that their clientele base goes through them in order to avoid background checks for a reason. Clientele such as felons, domestic abusers, the seriously mentally ill, and terrorist know about this loophole, and exploit it every day. In order to eliminate the leading source of gun crimes, universal background checks must be implemented. This will eradicate the private sale and gun show ‘loop hole’ while preventing any prohibited buyer from undermining the system. 

In order for the universal background check to be successful, a renovation of the system should come first” (NRA). The entire data base must be updated with more comprehensive checks and mandatory participation by all 50 states. With “support from over 93% of Americans” more in depth checks on any and all gun sales will help prevent future mass shootings such as John R. Houser’s and Dlyann roof’s. In both of these cases, the men were able to “purchase weapons because they passed a standard background check that both should have failed,” resulting in the deaths of over 18 people (NRA).  The inconsistent database and lack of stringent policy on the checks is what allowed these gunmen, whom both had mental illness, to slip through the “leaky and inefficient national instant criminal background check system” (Smith 10).  We also need to make sure the background check database is complete with full cooperation from all states. Without total cooperation and updated status’, states and federal agencies will continue to “fail sending in hundreds of thousands of records to the national background check databases” (Boston Globe). By not updating citizen’s profiles, this allows millions of Americans who have lost their right to possess a firearm, the ability to purchase them without any issues. Every missing record is another tragedy waiting to happen. 

Regardless of universal background checks and a no-buy list, criminals and those with ill intentions will always find a way to access firearms. This is why it is paramount to not only limit their ability to buying these but also monitor the types of weapons are accessible to the public, for preventative purposes. In “90% of mass shootings in the last 10 years’ assault rifles have been the weapon of choice,” branding the military grade assault rifle, the AR.15, as the number one public enemy (Wing 2). These weapons clearly outweigh their purpose in sport and self-defensive, as they are capable of rapid-firing hundreds of rounds with detachable large-capacity magazines, and military-style features, such as a pistol grip and foldable stock. These military grade qualities attract many people to the weapon and are responsible for its presence in mass shootings. Given these unnecessary features and upgrades, legislator’s need to consider reinstating the assault weapons ban so that these highly lethal guns do not further fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

Those who oppose the ban on assault rifles see them as necessary for self-defense and sport but Joe Biden states that “a handgun is far more useful than any assault weapon for self-defense.” Given that a handgun can be concealed and carried, it can be transported anywhere providing security and east at mind. The mobility and accessibility of a handgun during times of need is what perfectly suits it for personal protection. The power and lethality of assault weapons proves to again be unnecessary for the average Americans safety. White house press secretary Josh Earnest agreed when asserting, “you don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting,” as the animal will be mangled and not acceptable for eating or mantling.  Simply put there is no place for assault weapons in sport or self-defense, as even Obama stated that “AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers”.  The power and lethality of assault weapons has proven to be overwhelming and simply unnecessary, leaving the American citizens with multiple other options for self-defense and sport. 

No matter how feasible other options may be in place of an assault rifle, a ban on this type of weapon isn’t realistic in the near future. Without banning these weapons, they instead need to be heavily regulated until prohibited. If one wishes to acquire an assault rifle, they will be subject to longer waiting periods to ensure detailed background checks are approved. With an updated background checking system and state records of all weapon holders, the proper procedures and information will be more accurate and up to date when screening a candidate. Although a candidate may be deemed suitable for an assault rifle, many other citizens will still acquire them illegally and keep the existing ones they have. In order to avoid a national scale ‘buy back’ of all assault rifles, bullet control can be implemented as a preventative plan. Bullet control will consist of a national registry that can keep track of how much ammunition individuals are buying and raise red flags when “In no scenario is it necessary to possess 1600+ rounds of ammunition to protect one’s home and property” (McCarthy 2).  By keeping magazines with hundreds of bullets in them limited and out of reach from the public, this will restrict or delay mass shootings and weapons used to do so. 

Whether or not they carry assault weapons or have been through background checks, malignant individuals will always find a way to obtain a firearms and pose a threat to society. Once a shooter has posed his threat to the public or institution he is in, ‘the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun’. This philosophy can prove to be true as in several mass shootings gun free zones resulted in mass fatalities, that could have been prevented. “schools are typically gun-free zones, owing to a federal law which prohibits firearms in all K-12 schools: public, private, and parochial.” (McCarthy 1).  As more schools become gun free zones, there banning of guns doesn’t just leave people vulnerable and defenseless, but they attract shooters with the intent on killing as many people as possible. In turn this safety policy creates a breeding ground for mass shootings and helpless victims. As of now nine states have extended the exception to teachers who have concealed-carry permits to arm themselves at school. This exception to teachers is the only viable option the government can employ to prevent more mass shootings. If multiple teachers from each department can obtain a concealed-carry permits as well as pass intense screening, they should be able to lock away their weapon in their classroom. This simple change, already enacted in nine states, could possibly change the course of dozens of schools and save hundreds of lives. This simple change in legislation will be able to deter shooters from schools while keeping civil liberties intact and maintained. 

As school shootings have mounted nation-wide, the widespread urgency to put an end to mass shootings has become ever present. Many see the solution as carrying out tougher gun laws, while others believe that trained individuals in the school building will be the change to stop these phenomena’s. Several states have begun to allow teachers and staff to bring guns into the school if they have concealed-carry permit, while other states limit that ability to school officers and security guards, or like some states, no personnel can carry firearms into the building. Either way both parties need to come to an agreement to make change in order to prevent future shootings. An agreement between the two parties can be made in order to protect citizens while keeping their rights in play, and even expanding those rights by allowing them to bring guns on college campus’. 

The aforementioned arguments and ideals are vital to the safety and livelihood of the American people. This unarresting strife between the two parties can be broken, and a settlement can be reached.  It’s is crucial for this nations success to overcome this epidemic and understand the issue from both sides. The government can’t physically seize over 200 million firearms within the United States, forcing the solution to be solved based on the preexisting guns. The United States also can’t succeed without gun restrictions in place and regulations on certain guns and ammunition. This leaves law makers with the only answer found in the middle grounds, which is the crux of my argument. 

Given the supporting evidence, it is evident that united states must make a change that is suitable for all beings. With this said, it is clear that gun ownership is necessary for the safety of the public while respecting the second amendment rights. As this responsibility sits heavy in many minds it also evitable that this ownership must coincide with certain regulations that will hold the owner to a high standard of responsibility. These regulations must control several aspects of pre and present ownership in order to set these minds at ease. The united states can’t afford to continue to make lethal weapons accessible to lethal individuals. This being said, terrorists, mentally ill and others on the no buy or fly list cannot be permitted to legally purchase firearms, while all gun sales will be registered and customers will be run through the updated universal background check system. Following this, the ban of assault rifles will be commenced and regulations on bullet control will also take place. Assault rifles have proven to be unnecessary in sport and self-defense as other weapons are more realistic options, such as handguns. Handguns will also be available to any legal and authorized citizen to conceal and carry. These steps moving forward will not only foster Americans safety but also preserve their endowed rights by the constitution, while even expanding these boundaries. As America was forged on the foundation of equality and prides itself on freedom, law abiding citizens should be able to express these rights while enjoying the comfort of personal safety. Let make America great again. 
