The right to bear arms is a constitutional guarantee, and is not open for discussion; however, the United States Government has used its power to limit and regulate this guarantee. Our government has been attacking this right for years, and like a covert terrorist organization, it denies its action. Pretending that they just want to limit the right to bear arms is their blanket of protection. They will slowly move from under that protection only when the nation is ready to accept the loss of this right and when it doesn't appear to be huge a movement to give up that right.
             At some point in the future, the right to bear arms will be so limited that it will just be a natural move to ban firearms altogether. The Government believes that the banning or restricting the right to keep and bear arms will decrease violence. This has been the demand for the Government movement against gun rights for years. If you really think about it though, this notion is simply absurd. To demonstrate you must first separate Americans into two general categories. First, there are upstanding citizens who work to support themselves and/or a family. These people may experience some trouble with the law only because nobody's perfect. The next category is criminal. Many categories could be made out of this one, but to keep it simple, we'll just use one.
             These people generally have little respect for the law, and this is why many of them are in our jails and prisons. These are the people responsible for the murders, rapes, robberies, and other violent crimes in our society today. Now, if you present gun restrictions or a ban on guns to both of these categories, what will be the outcome? The outcome is the entire basis for why gun restriction has a reverse effect. What happens is that you end up with a population of upstanding property-owning citizens that are unarmed. This population generally yields to the laws, and therefore they freely give up their right t...