Here is a paper I wrote in college....Part 1

[En4cr]

An Anti-Crime Constitutional Amendment

[En4cr]

Part 2:
I have mentioned that unemployment would be reduced. By making more weapons, more ammunition would be needed; therefore more jobs would be opened. More jobs would be created by the need for all of the ancillary equipment for the weapons in general. By having more jobs, the economy would improve, since the need for more goods and services is needed. The military-industrial base would still have orders for the big ticket items, such as tanks and artillery. This proposal is very cost effective since the majority of the weapons have already been paid for. Since most Americans pay taxes, they already “own” some weapons produced for the military, it is a tangible proof of their tax dollars at work by being able to physically own what they paid for.
I must stop and digress for a moment to say how I propose to transfer the weapons. First, every person will have to go to an abbreviated basic training stressing marksmanship for his or her weapon of choice. Upon graduation from the course, the people would be issued a certificate as proof of attendance. Second, the people would go to the nearest Post Office, turn in the certificate and receive their weapon (tanks and artillery require 24 hour notice). And last, there would be mandatory range attendance every six months to requalify with that weapon, just like in the military. Failure to requalify will result in forfeiture of that weapon, and being issued a pistol.
Some misguided people will say the proliferation of weapons will increase the number of crimes. I do not see it that way. Increase in weapons will keep the peace, the same way the nuclear weapons kept a major war (read nuclear) from happening for over forty years. If for some reason, the population of the United States was annihilated by this proposal, the proposal still worked. There will not be any violent crime if there are not any people left.
There are not any clear cut answers to the problem of violent crime. Some people say that the crime rate is a national disgrace. That is not true. What is a national disgrace is the protection of criminals, while preventing the average, law-abiding citizen his or her pursuit of happiness. Banning handguns is not an answer; neither is suing the makers of the guns. There is a definite need for dramatic and radical measures in the war against violent crime, such as mandatory sentence times upon convictions without any appeals or paroles. With any death sentence, the defendant will have only one appeal to the next higher court, no stays of executions, or pardons. Upon the outcome of appeal, if sentence is upheld, the criminal would face the Executioner within one day. There must be a harsh examples set for the deterrence of crime, not just political hot air. Remember, talk is cheap, but action speaks louder than words. Granted, none of these measures are “pretty,” but then again, neither is crime.