A Well Regulated Militia
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.
I believe that we should keep the second amendment, but I believe that we should only permit certain guns to be made. Rifles, shotguns, and some pistols are practical, but other guns that are made available to civilians are just asking to be used to kill someone. They can’t be used to kill animals because it would ruin all the meat. What else are these guns to be used for then? It is a right for all American’s to bear arms, and has been since our constitution was written. Why then would you take away a basic civil liberty? That would infringe on our rights. I think that possibly stricter rules should be made and enforced to the full extent. Not everyone that gets a gun is going to use it to harm someone. Actually, most people don’t. I would speculate that most people that are going to kill someone get that weapon through illegal means. So why would abolishing the second amendment do anything to solve that problem? If they’re getting them illegally now they will still be able to get them illegally then. So actually the only person that you are affecting, well actually two, is the consumer and the producer. It will affect the economy by putting major gun manufacturers out of business, which in turn will cause thousands of people to lose their jobs.
Hunting is a tradition in America. Our ancestors hunted to survive. Today we don’t necessarily do it to survive but we do eat the meat and enjoy the hunt. It gives us time to bond with our friends and or family. Also, if the hunting industry was stopped a lot of people would lose a way to make a living. My mom’s best friend and her father own a 20,000 acre game ranch in Rock Springs, Texas. People go out there for every different hunting season. They come from all over the world and pay money for every animal they take off the property. White tail bucks cost the seasonal hunter $1,500; does are $1000. Exotic animals range in price and may be hunted year round.
Over all, A Well Regulated Militia is a book that provided us great details on how was the Second Amendment was influencing gun control early America. Our Founding Fathers made a right decision to create the Second Amendment to give more benefits for American citizens, but in the 21st century, many crimes abused the Second Amendment as a reason for them to break the laws. Congress needs to step up and take action on guns control to stop more tragedies that involves guns in the future like in The Dark Knight Rises movie massacre.
"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."
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "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.
Liberals: they say that the “well-regulated militia” clause means that the Amendment refers to the right of militias to possess firearms to use against dangers to the people. They also argue that we have very different weapons than in the late 18th century—assault weapons, for instance, and that the Founders would not have agreed that these should be available to all citizens. They also point to the very large number of gun deaths in the United States compared to comparable countries.
Should we abolish the Second Amendment in order to reduce gun violence in America? Even if all guns were taken away there would still be violent crimes in America. In the article The Unrealistic Goals of Gun Control, there is an argument that there are several uncontrollable details as flaws in taking away all registered guns. In the U.S., For example, if guns are removed bad people will still find ways to commit crimes with or without guns (Wilson 1). I bel...
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
According to www.archives.gov, the second amendment of the United States Constitution reads that: “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.” This amendment is
Should the 2nd Amendment be revoked or changed? Many Americans would say “No,” stating that guns are dangerous and times have changed. Others might argue that having the right to bear arms keeps people safe and less threatened by the outside world. In this debate, both sides of the 2nd Amendment constitutional rights will be argued. The upcoming presidential election has been influencing voters to revoke our 2nd amendment rights, which could change the democracy on which our country was founded.
Hunting is a very expensive sport to get into. From guns, to tree stands, to even hunting clothes, hunting can be costly. On average, hunters spend $1896.00 per year on hunting (LaBarbera 1). Equipment and expenditures alone in 2001 grossed $24,708,970,000 (for all types of hunting) and $10,673,990,535 of that was of deer hunting (LaBarbera 2). These expenditures then “ripple” through the economy generating three times more impact for the U.S. economy. For many communities, hunting dollars keep them afloat. This money made can also be pumped back into funding wildlife and conservation foundations. In good times and bad, hunters set their sights on spending more time in the fields and forests. Even when economic recession and uncertainty over homeland security have the nation and the economy recoiling, hunters continue to aim their leisure time and money toward shooting sports activities. For example, since 1991, when the nation was mired in a similar recession and war, retail sales have grown nearly 17% (adjusted for inflation). Many just do not realize the positive impacts generated by hunters. A recent report released by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation highlights that Americans spend more on hunting equipment and dogs than they do for ski equipment. If that’s not enough, the $2.4 billion in federal income tax revenue generated by hunters
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. Amendment II
Hunting is a passion for millions of Americans across the United States and without it who knows what the current deer population would be. With the white tailed deer having few predators and a large habitat to thrive in it is important to keep the tradition of hunting going. Besides, the real problem Anti-hunters should be focusing on is the growth of cities and communities because they are what truly hurts the deer population. As long as deer hunting safety remains under control and the deer population stays in tacked, there should be no reason to end future hunts for Americans. To conclude, it is true that many people don’t believe in the ethics of hunting and that is alright, because regardless of how they feel hunting is here to stay for many years to
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. (Amendment II 1791)
The second amendment states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Founding Fathers included this in the Bill of Rights because they feared the Federal Government might oppress the population if the people did not have the means to defend themselves as a nation or individuals.
Hunting demonstrates the ability to protect and provide mainly referred to males providing their families with meat from the animals and protecting their land. (“Modern Hunters Are Stewards of Wildlife and the Environment.”) The economy today is very unsustainable and hunting is the key to feeding the hungry. (“Modern Hunters Are Stewards of Wildlife and the Environment.”) There are many food banks today that will accept the meat provided by animals and feed hungry organizations that cannot buy food themselves. What most people don’t know is most of the money used by hunters that go towards hunting licenses, hunting tags, and hunting lotteries to hunt in particular spots go to wildlife research and habitat protections in that hunters home state. With approximately 12.5 million hunters in the World today a lot more money gets sent to these organizations than people would ever think. Overall, hunting is a positive force because it provides an economic motive for maintaining wildlife habitats. This keeps animals in their own habitats and away from people and their homes as much as possible. Some see this sport very cruel and un-humane but overall it is helping this World out way more than people think. If we didn’t have people who hunt or knew how to hunt we would be very reliant on other foods. Such as farming fruits and vegetables, which could go extinct if something devastating happens. We wouldn’t have the protein and vitamins needed in the meat we eat. Hunting is very necessary, and everyone should know how to hunt or learn soon. It’s helpful now, and will be very helpful in the future if there is a reason we can’t rely on cattle for meat anymore. We will have to figure out other ways to get meat, and without hunting it is very unlikely that
The Second Amendment of the United States protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The United States Government should not infringe on those rights by the enforcement of gun control against law-abiding citizens. Gun control does not reduce crime, does not stop criminals from obtaining guns, and does not address the real issue of violent crime. There is no evidence that gun control affects the crime rate. The United States government is attempting to reduce violent crime by controlling the amount of guns on the market, who is allowed to purchase a gun, and what type of gun a person is allowed to purchase. The only people affected by gun control laws are the law-abiding citizen that should be allowed to purchase firearms without the government’s interjection.