In 2018, more than 100 children died in school shootings, and many more were injured. Guns have always been present in our society, even when our founding fathers wrote the Constitution. Gun control has always been an issue, and now more than ever it is a matter of debate between two large groups. On one side we have the NRA and other pro gun owners. On the other hand there are liberal-leaning politicians and their voters. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay On February 20, 2018, another school shooting occurred in Parkland, Florida, and now schools across the nation are calling for a dramatic change to gun restrictions. But is this right? The shooting in Florida could have easily been avoided, both because of the tip-offs received from the FBI about the killer's erratic mental state, and because of the fact that four police officers were waiting outside the school listening to the unmistakable sound of gunshots. Is this just about taking away people's constitutional rights because some law enforcement officers made unforgivable mistakes that could have changed the fate of 17 schoolchildren? Many people are torn between possible answers to this question, myself included. I agree that something needs to be done, but it shouldn't be as extreme as some are proposing. There are arguments and problems on both sides. Gun control activists are calling for a total ban on automatic weapons. Many argue that the 2nd Amendment protects us from the government taking away our right to own a gun. However, what these people forget to mention is the first part of the amendment. It states that “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. ” The first part clearly says “A well-regulated militia. “We are far beyond that in our society today. There are people with gun collections consisting of hundreds of weapons ranging from small pistols to high-powered automatic rifles. Is it really necessary? Do people really need to own hundreds of guns, even double-digit amounts? Many people argue that no, it is not necessary. Another argument is that hopefully a gun owner can prevent a shooting. However, people on the other side say no, a gun owner would be too inexperienced or too scared to intervene and prevent a mass shooting. They argue that the realistic chances that gun owners will be able to protect themselves, let alone the people around them, in an emergency are very slim. Some less radical politicians ask for less scandalous solutions. These people recognize the right to own some weapons, but call for restrictions on some weapons, from bans on high-powered weapons like Ar-15s, to increased stockpiles that increase the weapons' rate of fire. The people on the other side also have well-thought-out arguments. First, they bring out the Constitution. Of course we talk about a “regulated militia”, but we also say: “The right to keep and bear arms must not be violated. This means that if Donald Trump randomly woke up one morning and said, “I will ban all guns,” the proposal would be voted unconstitutional because it goes against the Second Amendment. However, if he woke up one morning and said "I'm going to ban some firearms", he would vote constitutional since it doesn't go against the second amendment. The constitution states that “a well-regulated militia” and by banning high-powered weapons Donald Trump would regulate, as well as preserve the.