Does using an untrue statement as the main idea of your side of an argument make much sense? That is exactly what those who oppose the new gun control measures are doing. Their main case is that the new measures go against their “constitutional right,” when really it is the opposite. The people opposing the gun control measures use media and comedy to try to “convert” others to their way of beliefs, where as the supporters use modest, solemn media, which includes stories of the bad associated with guns. Though I do not completely agree with the new measures I do think it would make more sense to at least tell the truth. If I had to pick one specific side I would have to go with the supporters of the laws because they make more sense.

Those who oppose the additional gun control measures seem to center their arguments on their “constitutional right” to keep their guns. Though they say the government is trying to take their weapons, the new laws say nothing about confiscating guns at all. The new laws consist of regulations on the types of guns and the size of magazines. Their other accusations consist of calling president Obama “tyrannical” for his proposals. They also say his proposals go against the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment actually calls for a “well-regulated militia” to protect the government and the goals of the nation. The way those opposing the new measures see this Amendment is they have the complete right to own almost whatever they want, but in reality the nation’s goal is less violence and the nation finds these laws will do so. That being said this means if they are following the Second Amendment then they would agree with the laws. In the movie Red Dawn civilians that own firearms protect against invaders from another nation. This is what opponents of the measures are trying to preserve, the ability to defend against others who might threaten them. Those who oppose the laws also continue by saying Obama “overreaches his power.” By saying Obama overreaches his power means other presidents did the same thing. Compared to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, Obama has not sign many executive orders. Even if they blame Obama, he is not the whole reason for these measures. They were put in by congress and approved by our president.

Although most N.R.A. members oppose the new laws, they do agree with implementing mental health checks before firearm purchases. Like most who oppose the laws say, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” I consider this statement completely true. Saying guns kill people is like saying spoons make people fat. It is the user that does the deed, not the utensil.

Those who oppose the new laws do question if the laws will actually work to stop violence and the truth is it probably will not. Even if you do deeper background searches, if a criminal really wants a firearm they are going to get one. Saying this, I do find the mental health checks are a good idea. Even if they seem sane on the outside it could be an act to make you think they are regular, law-abiding citizens. I think if they are doing these checks for the gun owners, the tests should also be done for people who might come in contact with the weapon. Even if the legal owner is sane and safe with a gun, others who might be able to get access to it might not be as safe with the weapon.

Even though what those who oppose the measures say is mostly a lie, they do make some valid points like if the measures will actually help. Though I do not fully believe the actions will help, I do think they are a step in the right direction. If there is a way to do even deeper background checks I think it should be done, and if there is a way to check those who might have contact with the gun this action should be taken also. Although these measures will make it harder for law-abiding citizens to get firearms, they will also make it harder for criminals to get a hold of them. Personally, I think the additional trouble you would have to go through to get a gun is worth the added level of safety.