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.