Right to Bear Arms Arguing

Right to Bear Arms

Arguing for the right to bear arms is a more complex and challenging task than arguing against it. The key, then, to a successful argument for the position I have chosen is to point out facts and information that would be relevant and convincing to the audience I am going to address. There are various audiences to which my arguments will be addressed. These audiences include the general public and specific sectors relevant to the issue of gun control. These specific sectors include gun owner groups and anti-gun ownership groups. Between these two groups, anti-gun ownership groups would prove to be a more challenging sector to convince than gun owners. The general public is also susceptible to the popular belief that gun ownership is generally harmful to civil society, which could promote a gradual dissent to gun ownership or the right to bear arms.

For the general public and anti-gun ownership groups, points that must be pointed out are two main arguments. The first argument would be to point out that essentially, the right to bear arms is an individual right that can be exercised by any member of the civil society. In so doing, an individual is merely accomplishing a right that is rightfully his/hers from the beginning. The second main argument to be pointed out is that gun ownership does not necessarily translate to its improper use, posing as a threat to civil society. The legislative system has created a system that eliminates the occurrence of improper or inappropriate gun use, to prevent this threat from happening. Given these existing arguments for gun ownership, both anti-gun ownership groups and the general public would hopefully subsist to the view that indeed, exercising the right to bear arms is a privilege that will ensure the citizen of his/her safety and precaution against deviants in the civil society.