We are not safe at work better yet we are not safe at home and the individual right to keep and bear arms does not help. By definition, the right to keep and bear arms often referred to as the right to bear arms or to have arms is the Constitution’s second amendment, which allows one to possess arms for own defense. This means anyone in America has the right to bear arms. However, society is less safe when everyone is allowed to carry guns. The question is who should have the right to bear arms. The right to people to keep and bear arms should be further restricted.
The right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of the profession, such as police officers, should be further restricted so that the use of force of injuring or killing another person is reasonable and justified. Police departments should review how officers use force. Police officers everywhere have been criticized for being too aggressive in their use of force more than once.
Once faced with tougher restrictions because of police officers and individuals expanded background checks for the right to keep and bear arms, expect criminals to find the way to commit a crime. For instance, according to Andrew Gumbel, writer for The Guardian, the daily Washington newspaper, Timothy McVeigh, solo mastermind, found the way to commit a crime disregarding gun restriction. McVeigh, a decorated Army veteran of the Persian Gulf War abused one’s right to keep and bear arms when he bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 killing 168 people. McVeigh stole the material to make the bomb and robbed a gun collector in his home of $60,000 worth of guns. The gun control law did not stop McVeigh from acquiring guns, explosives and committing this evil act and will not stop other criminals from using illegal
He demonstrates when guns are found in every household, gun control can do little to restrict access to guns from potential criminals. (McMahan, 3) So, McMahan’s main premises comes into play, either everyone has guns, including criminals, or nobody has guns. “Gun advocates prefer for both rather than neither to have them” McMahan remarks, but ultimately that will just leave the country open to more violence and tragedies. “As more private individuals acquire guns, the power of the police declines, personal security becomes a matter of self help, and the unarmed have an incentive to get guns.” (McMahan, 2) Now everyone is armed, and everyone has the ability to kill anyone in an instant, making everyone less secure. Just as all the states would be safer if nobody were to possess the nuclear weapons, our country would be safer if guns were banned from private individuals and criminals.
This nation was built on the right to bear arms, but this freedom is more controversial than ever. With all the school shootings and gun violence in America today at some point it may seem that just too take away all guns may be the answer to this problem. In defense, this is not the answer. If someone wants to commit a crime, gun laws will not stop them from obtaining the weapon. It is like a drug. Drugs are illegal, but every day you see someone either with, on, or recovering from a drug habit. What about for defense right to own guns to protect your family if part of your constitutional rights. Rights that are supposed to be unalienable rights. Although in this day in time, they are always trying to take away guns either by trying to pass laws or taxing guns and ammo which almost makes guns unaffordable for middle class normal American families.
Over the past five years Americans have seen many horrific tragedies related to gun violence. Each of these terrible events has been accompanied with scrutinizing media coverage, and subsequently, a push on government level for increased gun control. On the surface these movements to take away guns from Americans may seem justified because of these events. In reality the federal government is encroaching upon our Second Amendment, the right to bear arms.
The controversy over assault rifles is one of the most problematic issues related to the contributions of gangs, drug traffickers, and most criminal activity. More often than not, criminals have access to the weapons of their choice more easily than it should be. Getting them from licensed dealers, black markets, and family members’ homes, the availability of these militia weapons has become to effortless to obtain. The rise of criminal activity is part of the reason more than one-third of high school students have easy access to a weapon or gun. “Four out of five guns brought to school are actually brought from their own homes” (Page par 2). This is one of the biggest problems when faced with where criminals get their guns. They either steal them from relative’s homes, ask to borrow them, or steal them from licensed sellers. There are a lot of ways people can get guns. People who should not be able to purchase a firearm are allowed to, and illegal transactions are also a huge issue with criminals getting their guns. For all these reasons that is why Government should require restricted gun ownership to protect society, prevent crime, and allow for recreational use.
In current day society, it is frequently promoted as self-defense and our “duty” as Americans to own a gun of some sort. The second amendment to the constitution declares that “We the People” are allowed to bear arms because we live in a free State. Although these statements are true, at what cost? The question, “at what cost,” arises due to the recent push for an extension and enforcement of the second amendment. The people of the States have been pushing for desired concealed carry at public areas, such as schools. Statements and questions of concern have been on the as to whether or not this idea is “smart”. Contrary of it allowing some people to feel safe, the idea should be imposed. Guns are weapons and they have the history behind them
The right to bear arms protects “The Individual” rights from owing a firearm. The modern federal government easily accepted the 2nd Amendment with a widespread agreement that power of the federal government to infringe the Amendment that gives people the right to bear arms. If the government should not have the power to abbreviate from the free right to exercise of religion, than the government should not have the power to abridge the 2nd Amendment right (Lund & Winkler, n.d.). Over the past century, many restriction were supported to prevent criminal from possessing firearms as the law also limits the law-abiding people who respect the law also known as “Honest
“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” is stated in the United States Constitution as the Second Amendment. Several Americans wish to rid of guns from citizens, disobeying and disrespecting the Constitution. I shot my first gun when I was young and have always been surrounded by them. My neighbor does not leave the house without carrying one, nor does my eighteen year old friend. Never once have I felt unsafe or uneasy knowing that there was a gun close to me. The right to bare arms has become a popular local battle in which some people want to reduce the freedom of one owning firearms while others wish for the
The second amendment to the US Constitution shows that it is unconstitutional to have complete and total gun control. The second amendment states 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 means that it is the right of an American citizen, abiding by the constitution, has the right to bear arms. Currently, there are over three hundred and seven billion people residing as American citizens. Within the homes of these Americans, forty five percent have a registered gun in their household. As a diverse nation, there are many reasons why there are guns located within a household. Sixty percent stated the gun is used for protection against int...
“I believe in 2nd Amendment, but not war weapons on streets”, quoted President Barack Obama ("Barack Obama on Gun Control", n.d., para. 3). The debate on whether stricter gun laws will help deter crime has gained much attention since crime rates started to increase. Many research studies show that stricter gun laws are very effective at inhibiting crime. Arguing on the affirmative side, stricter gun laws will help deter crime by banning ownership of military-style assault weapons, by banning weapons with high-capacity magazines, and by creating new gun regulations that delays the process of gun ownership while significantly limiting weapon access at the same time. If stricter gun laws are incorporated into the system, we will be able to envision a bright and crime-free future ahead of us.
Currently, The United States of America is at war against 27 words that were written by James Madison in 1789. The Bill of Rights is known as the first 10 amendments to The Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights states the rights of its citizens. The Second Amendment 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”(Madison). Many people have argued that “to keep and bear arms” is not very obvious. James Madison is not alive to clear up this misunderstanding that, for hundreds of years, has caused controversies. Some experts argue that, gun ownership laws should be relaxed because this country cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens. Others say that gun ownership laws should not be relaxed because it would increase the number of weapons and increase the availability of weapons for criminals. And thus, the debate over the right to bear arms continues, again.
America is the most well armed nation in the world, with American citizens owning about 270 million of the world’s 875 million firearms (Marshall). Indeed, this is more than a quarter of the world’s registered firearms. The reason why Americans own so many guns is because of the Second Amendment, which 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.” (Rauch) This amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to have firearms. Since this amendment is relatively vague, it is up for interpretation, and is often used by gun advocates to argue for lenient gun laws. Hence, gun control is a frequently discussed controversial topic in American politics.
Guns, Crime, and Freedom states that, no gun law which restricts the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns has been proven to reduce crime or homicides, not even the Brady Law and the “Clinton Crime Bill.” These two laws st...
Crime and guns. The two seem to go hand in hand with one another. But are the two really associated? Do guns necessarily lead to crime? And if so do laws placing restrictions on firearm ownership and use stop the crime or protect the citizens? These are the questions many citizens and lawmakers are asking themselves when setting about to create gun control laws. The debate over gun control, however, is nothing new. In 1924, Presidential Candidate, Robert La Follete said, “our choice is not merely to support or oppose gun control but to decide who can own which guns under what conditions.” Clearly this debate still goes on today and is the very reason for the formation of gun control laws.
Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. A vast majority of citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would quickly reduce the threat of crime. Many innocent people feel they have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting. Americans have a constitutional right to own hand guns and stricter laws and licensing will not affectively save lives.
The topic of gun control comes with a widely spilt crowd. Some people believe that gun control is essential, especially in today’s world. Some people think gun control will help with decreasing crime and making the nation a safer place for us to live. On the other hand, there are people who speak of anti-gun control. These people believe the right to bear arms would make our nation a safe place to live due to the fact that we would have protection. Do you think the Government has the right to make something illegal like the right to bear arm? In my opinion, the Government cannot simply because it will be an offence to our founding fathers, who gave us the national right to bear arm. Also, for making