Fluency writing 3

Today I am going to write about my stance on Constitutional gun laws in America. The Democratic Party and Obama have been trying to put more gun control on the US citizens throughout the past few years. The constitution clearly states the law on guns in the second amendment; "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." Ok, so this says that we have the right to a militia, (a militia is an army of normal volunteer civilians), and not just that we have the right, but that it is necessary. After it explains the militia, it says that the people have the right to bear arms. It does not specify what kind of arms, just that we have the right to bear them. The statement ends on that these rights shall not be infringed on. Definition of infringed? To actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.). So the right of the people, citizens of America, is to bear arms, and the government is not allowed to infringe upon that; no matter how politicians want to twist their way into making you think that they can, according to the constitution, they are not allowed to. Now that that is cleared up on legal stance, lets talk about the logical stance. Crime rates over the past couple decades have risen since some people have stopped owning guns due to the gun control laws. Politicians state that they are trying to protect the people with these laws, when really they are doing the exact opposite. Owning guns will cause the crime rates to go down, if a criminal assumes you have a way to protect yourself, their not going to take the chance on you having a gun. But, if you advertise that you are for gun control, your just an easy target for those guys. Furthermore, if they do pass the gun laws, all the bad guys are going to break it anyways and keep some guns, while the good men, wanting to obey the laws, will give up their guns and you can guess where we would end up then.