Pro-Gun Control Vs Anti-Gun Control

http://www.guninformation.org/

The above website is strictly pro-gun control and begins by offering up a selection of 'myths' anti-gun control citizens will often cite, and then methodically debases those myths. It refers to crime rates in other countries, such as Australia and the UK, as having benefitted from the banning of firearms, and heavily tries to persuade people that having a gun does not increase personal protection, pointing out that 'those who own firearms are actually more likely to be victims of homicide.'

They even go so far as to point out how 'Gun ownership was legalized in Germany in 1928, five years before Hitler rose to power' and note that 'Private ownership of guns was very common under Saddam Hussein's regime'; highlighting examples of gun ownership offering no protection against tyranny. This being the main reason Americans introduced the amendments in the first place, as a way to set new governing rules unlike those of Britain; their deeply ingrained fear being for America to turn into a tyrannical nation like the one they had escaped.

They hold to the view that 'If you outlaw guns, very few criminals will have guns' and by making guns legal, you are handing criminals easy weapons and effectively asking for trouble. Other parts of the website refer to freedom and rights, and explain how those can be infringed upon by allowing people to bear arms so loosely, and neglecting to control their usage and ownership.

Their argument is a very persuasive one given the nature of their findings, and the constant reassurance with specific dates, facts and figures; along with examples from all over the globe of similar bans, or cases where owning a gun hasn't helped. They even refer to the Swiss law for the army keeping firearms in their homes, which is a direct reference to the idea that the founders of America only meant for the militia to have access to weapons, rather than every individual. According to them, 'When the second amendment is read as a whole, it is clear that it protects the right of the people to bear arms within the context of an organized militia.'

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

This anti-gun control website, however, tries to convince people that 'the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms,' meaning that being a part of the militia was not a prerequisite to owning a gun. Though, they also argue that in this modern age, every American civilian can be considered a part of the militia and therefore they have the right to bear arms.

Unlike the first website, which heavily relies on using statistics and experiences to support its argument against the use of guns, this website tends to use interpretation of the amendments and historical documents as its foundation; relying on emotional tactics to justify itself by talking of 'freedom' at every available opportunity. They view the words from the constitution as mutable, and proceed to offer definitions of terms used in the second amendment, such as 'well-regulated', 'militia' and 'to keep.'

There is a big emphasis on the restriction of individual liberties, explaining that 'The original right of self-defence' is not a modern concoction and how American history shows that the right to bear arms against a tyrannical government is ingrained in the constitution. The website is also rife with anti-gun control court cases that have been won using their word play.

This website is a lot less convincing, with parts of their argument appearing contradictory or as though they shouldn't hold up under closer scrutiny. Inclusive of this is how they admit that when the term 'people' is used in the constitution it could be interpreted as meaning people on the whole, rather than people as individuals, and with that in mind revert to extend the militia to include ordinary citizens.

Although there is a lot more information to be found on this website than the pro-gun control site, it appears to be defending its choice for anti-gun control, rather than constructing a good argument for the legalisation of fire arms, making it inferior and much less appealing.