Banning firearms are good... But what about the amendment?

Recently in New York federal judges ruled that a New York gun law restricting assault weapons and large-capacity magazines was constitutional. This a benefit because it reduces violence. It can reduce drug wars by causing drug lords not to carry weapons. it can Longer minimum mandatory sentencing for repeat violent/invasive crimes and increase counseling and intervention. It also reduces military conflict and issues in schools that result in violence. All of these benefits are well needed in our government but the real question is, Are these bans constitutional?

In the second amendment its states that the United States Constitution protects the right of individual Americans to keep and bear arms regardless of if they are active in the service of the military. The right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of firearms and similar devices such as knives, clubs, or fists. So even though these bans are beneficial as far as saving money and protecting the citizens of the United States in some way it sort of conflicts with what is outlined in the constitution. Furthermore it in some ways removes the second amendment from the constitution all together. This is how we see the negative side of the gun control and the banning of fire arms. This also brings up the issues of does this even solve to problem. People who are leaning towards violence can just simply finds new ways that will help them achieve their negative goal. The banning of firearms will just cause knives and other objects to become more popular in violent acts.

Further, gun bans have failed to achieve their objectives and, even with best real estimates would take years to show any kind of significant effect. Few, if any, of the most spectacular crimes of this year would have been affected in any way by such a ban. It also must be said that the federal government hasn't given gun owners any reason over the last 100 years, let alone the last 10, to believe that the Second Amendment is anything less than an absolute necessity.

So if the government officials believe that removing the Second Amendment all together would save lives, then it should be willing to demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that it simply isn't necessary. At the end of the day people know their rights and it will be hard for the government to argue with seeing that it is written in the constitution and trying to change that will just simply take to long to process.

Ban against Same-Sex marriage UNCONSTITUTIONAL ?

In Salt Lake City, Utah there was a law that was recently banned. There ban against same sex marriages was said to unconstitutional because it conflicted with guarantees of equality and equal protection among all citizens. This effected the state of Utah so much that even an openly gay state senate vowed to not marry his partner until they are able to marry in Utah. After making this law what attributes made them decide to make this unconstitutional? Well, in the constitution it states in the fourteenth amendment that  in The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision that precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation which was the separation of humans into racial groups in daily life. This separation may  have applied to activities such as eating in a restaurant, drinking from a water fountain, using a public toilet, attending school, going to the movies, riding on a bus, or even in the rental or purchase of a home. But what a lot people seem to forget or look over is that this equal protection clause also meant the the same for many other decisions rejecting irrational or unnecessary discrimination against people belonging to various groups that excluded the issue of race.

There are several different types of state constitutional amendments banning legal recognition of same-sex unions in U.S. state constitutions, and this has been a growing trend over the years since about 1996. These laws are able to be made because lawmakers interpret the amendments to define marriage as only a union between one man and one woman which means they prevent civil unions or same-sex marriages from being legalized. But what about the opinions of the people and what if that doesn't seem very equal? This is what can cause people to feel that this is unconstitutional.

So what makes this unconstitutional is that it can come off to people who agree on same sex marriage that they aren't being treated equally or the same as people who agree on marriage of the opposite sex. They feel that they will possibly be deprived of the the same rights as others who look at what they are doing as wrong. So with these strong opinions floating around it is easy to recognize how these laws can seem unfair and also unconstitutional to the outlines of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution