When looking at the issue of gun control in America, the rights of the individual are slowly being taken away as time has passed. The constitution states in the 2nd amendment that, “American citizens have the right to bear arms”. This means that if you are an American citizen you have complete rights to be able to own a firearm. This isnt always the case now as gun laws and regulations have become much more strict in the recent years. There are bills being put in order to ban the sale and use of “bump stocks” after the Las Vegas shooting that happened last year. A bump stock allows for someone to modify their semi automatic weapon, and increase the fire rate on that weapon by using the recoil of the gun to cause another pull of the trigger. If laws are passed that ban the use and sale of bump stocks then it is limiting one's right to the 2nd amendment. Limiting the 2nd amendment also limits one's individual rights to be able to protect themselves and enjoy the sport of shooting. Although there are some arguments on why there should be more limitations on firearms, specifically the bump stock.

The issue of the bump stock is that it has been used to cause great death and tragedy, as seen in the Las Vegas shooting. This was a threat to the common good of the people that were present during the Las Vegas shooting. The bump stock allows for one to shoot a semi automatic weapon at near fully automatic speed. To be able to purchase and own a fully automatic weapon requires a very hard to obtain level 3 gun license, and for someone to be able to modify the fire rate of a semi automatic weapon to that of a fully automatic weapon makes this level 3 gun license practically useless. This can be a huge problem as seen with the Las Vegas shooting. In this shooting the shooter used a bump stock on his weapon, which in turn allowed for the shooter to shoot at a much higher fire rate than what they would have been able to accomplish without such modification. This increase in fire rate meant that the shooter was able to put out more ammunition per minute than they would have been able to before, which in turn caused more death and a lot more tragedy.

There are strong arguments on both the sides of the individuals rights, and the rights of the common good when it comes to the 2nd amendment and the bump stock. Without a doubt there should be stricter laws that restrict who can have guns, based on their mental wellbeing and their criminal record; on the other hand the rights of responsible gun owners who follow the rules should not be impeded upon by the actions of those in which should not own guns. The common good side of the argument for the bump stock is that it increases the fire rate of a semi automatic weapon to that of a fully automatic weapon. This is often refuted by people of the other side of the argument, who argue for the individuals rights. The way that a bump stock works is that the recoil of the gun is used to slide the finger back into the trigger again, which fires another round. This can be replicated without using a bump stock by holding the gun in a way which allows for the same motion to occur. That means that you can effectively use your hands to replicate the function of a bump stock, and no law could be passed and enforced to prevent you from using this technique.

When looking at the individual rights of a universal health care system, it is the problem of paying for someone else's  preventable medical issue through tax dollars that arises. There are plenty of medical issues that can often be prevented by living a healthy lifestyle, such as obesity, some forms of heart disease and many forms of cancers. Most major health issues in America infact tie back to preventable diseases, if the disease was preventable then that means most likely the person with that disease could have made choices that would have lead them to not have to seek treatment for that ailment. If someone made poor choices which leads them to having health complications, then it is not the responsibility of the tax payer to pay for that treatment of such illness. Similarities could be drawn with someone not taking care of their car. If that person noticed an issue with their car, which could either be fixed by themselves or prevented, it wouldn't make sense for them to expect it to be fully covered by their insurance company. Everyone should have the right to health care that is affordable for them, but the taxpayers dollars should not be the fund behind such a system.

The issue for the common good and the public's well being for universal healthcare, is that everyone should have easy access to healthcare that is quality and payed for by taxes. The funding for this healthcare should be from taxpayer dollars because the taxpayer is the person who is going to be using the service. Every American citizen should have the right to be able to receive free medical care, this way America will be a healthier place as peoples health issues will treated with government quality care, and not have to leave the hospital with huge amounts of debt. Raising taxes to give people the service of healthcare for free will ultimately grow the economy, as people will get back to work sooner from their absence and help grow those businesses. A universal health care system will also create many jobs as it will mean there are more hospitals and more opportunities for work. This has been seen in other countries, such as many western European countries, so it would also work well for America too.

There are decisive arguments on both sides on the topic of universal healthcare, as everyone should have access to healthcare and should not have to leave the hospital with huge sums of debt. Although the main disagreement stems from whether or not tax dollars should be used to fully fund such a program. The argument that tax dollars should not be used to fund a system such as universal healthcare is a stronger argument, as the responsibility falls on the individual to take care of their self to a degree, but also receive medical attention when needed. Healthcare should definitely not leave people in massive debt that is nearly impossible to climb out of, but it should also not be entirely funded by taxes. Taxes are normal allocated to programs and infrastructures that better the entire American population. Such as how the military provides safety for all Americans and how schools educate every American child for up to 12 years. Everyone benefits from these programs in one way or another. Healthcare on the other hand is not always used by everyone, and especially not used as frequently by some people as others. It is for these reasons why healthcare should not be funded entirely by the taxpayer dollars and should remain partially funded by the recipient of that care. Although the cost of receiving medical attention should decrease to a point were people are left in massive debt after seeing medical attention.