Gun Rights
Tavis Bryant
This is a really nice introductory paragraph dealing with the evolution of guns, but your argument is centered around the right to bear arms, which means that you might also want to focus on the background information concerning the individual's struggle with the state to keep himself armed.
Nice work on this paragraph, too--what about cases in which the citizen's gun is taken away by the criminal and used against him? Should the state sponsor gun safety and protection classes to teach citizens who buy guns for self-defense how to best use them?
Is it just those who live in rural areas with whom you're concerned here? It seems that urban dwellers are just as likely to go out and hunt for recreation or venison as one who lives in the country--ought he not to have a right to keep a gun with him, too? Develop this idea along the lines of current gun legislation that focuses on hunting. The last major gun reform law of 1993 saw a ban on semi-automatic weapons used in hunting. Discuss that.
You might develop this idea a bit along the lines of practicality--if a dictator does take over, what motive would he have for letting the populace retain their weapons? You might clarify that reference to being dragged off to Siberia--Miami, maybe--but Siberia's a bit far. Dictators are usually men, not women. Who do you think is going to enforce this global arming of the people? You might bring in the example of Switzerland, where the populace is required to arm themselves, as an example of one of the ways in which that country was able to maintain neutrality and avoid invasion through two world wars.
There are two ways to interpret that amendment, the other being that only the government sponsored militia need be armed. How would you answer that? After your hyperlink, you don't have to give me directions on how to use it. If I know enough to click on it, you should take for granted that I'll be able to find my way around it. What would the NRA's position be on the necessity of gun laws? You might find the hyperlink. How would that compare with your position?
You already talk about Communist countries in body 3. There's no sense in being redundant here. Focus on developed nations only in this paragraph. Perhaps talk about some of the gun laws countries like England and France, former colonial powers, have to contribute to this debate--did they, for instance, ban guns in the colonies, but allow them on their own London and Parisian streets? You might include developing, non-communist, nations, too.
Why would a normal citizen, even with special permission, need tracer or exploding bullets like if he's not going elephant hunting in the wilds of America? Consolidate your last two sentences into one sentence in about half the words--both of them say the same thing.
Focus in this paragraph on the impact this controversy is having on society--what is it doing to litigants suing gun manufacturers for producing a harmful product? How is legislation being crafted as a result of the various special interests coming out against them in light of the recent school shootings in the spring of 1998 in various parts of the country, in Columbine in the spring of 99, and, more recently, in Oklahoma this fall?