Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gun control in America today
Gun control issues in the us
Gun control issues in the us
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gun control in America today
Officially, a militia is part of the organized armed forces of a country that is called upon only in an emergency. There have been paramilitary groups with revolutionary ideas throughout America’s history, but today’s militia movement is a new more organized and violent presence (Meyers). Today the militia are unofficial citizens’ armies organized by private individuals, usually with antigovernment, far right agendas. They rationalize that the American people need armed force to help defend themselves against an increasingly oppressive government that is becoming part of a global conspiracy called the “New World Order” (Sonder, 2000). These armed groups call themselves militias; to both imply the image of the Minuteman of the Revolution and to try to claim legitimacy by asserting that these paramilitary groups were the “unorganized militia” of federal and state law. The causes for the militia movement are many, but most center around a fear of gun confiscation and the role such confiscation would play in their various one-world conspiracy theories.
The major events, which helped to incite the movement, include the Ruby Ridge and Waco standoffs, the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Manufacture Ban. The first groups began forming at the end of 1993; by mid-1994 (Sonder, 2000) there were a variety of such groups in many states across the country. While the media noted the emergence of this movement, little attention was paid to the phenomenon until late 1994, when civil rights organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League released reports on the militia movement. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center most of these citizens’ armies have few members and are not involved in violent activities (Sonder, 2000). They are interested mostly in the purchase and use of firearms, in discussions of patriotism, and in playing weekend war games. However, there are more than a hundred of these groups, which probably have ties to violent right wing and racist organizations.
The militia exploded into prominence, however, in April 1995 when early reports indicated that Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, the Oklahoma City bombing suspects, had belonged to a Michigan militia, or that militia groups were in some way directly connected to the bombing. As a result, nearly every newspaper and television stati...
... middle of paper ...
...f nuclear material
· Criminalizing the use of chemical weapons
· Asking the attorney general to issue a report on whether bomb making literature is protected by the First Amendment
· Giving the secretary of state authorization to identify a group as terrorist and forbid them from raising funds, they can also freeze the assets of such organizations
· Offering restitution to victims of some federal crimes
· Authorizing more than $1 billion over five years for federal, state, and local government programs designed to prevent or deal with terrorists.
After the Anti-Terrorism Law of 1996 was passed militia violence continued throughout the United States, but none of activities seemed organized on a large scale (Sonder, 2000). This could be due to increased pressures on the movement by the new law, which forced the militia further underground.
Dees, Morris, (1996), Gathering Storm: America’s Militia Threat.
Meyers, Leisa, Militia Movement, Microsoft Encarta 2001 CD-ROM
Sonder, Ben, (2000) The Militia Movement: Fighters Of The Far Right
Cress argues that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized militia groups. However, it was clear that the Founding Fathers made no distinction between the militia and the people. The Second Amendment allows individuals to own guns and to be able to protect themselves. If the Founding Fathers wanted gun ownership to be for militias only, they would have specifically stated that in the Second Amendment. Cress ineffectively argues that the militias were an important part of protecting the people when in reality they were not well-trained and may not have been committed to the cause which rendered them ineffective. Therefore, Cress’ argument is not reflective of the attitudes of the Founding
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.
The Executive Order Establishing Office of Homeland Security Council puts forth an agenda on countering terrorist acts; it is done to prevent untold a...
Since September 11, 2001, the criminal justice system has improved its methods to secure our nation from terrorist attacks. These improved methods can be summed into four kinds of categories and actions. The first key action the department of justice took was protecting America through investigation and criminal prosecution. The next changes were legal which were made to enhance the counter-terrorism efforts and help with investigation and prosecution. Then there are the structural changes to the operations of agencies to enhance counter-terrorism efforts....
With gun violence at an all-time high, and with stricter gun control laws looming, citizens of Texas are concerned for their safety. Mexican drug cartels are creeping further into American territory. In November 2009 it was found that drug cartels have started recruiting teens from border area high schools in Texas. (Trahan, 4). When this news was released, parent became concerned that their children would be next. With this concern residence in border towns, like El Paso, Texas, believe that they are safer with private gun ownership. (Baldauf, 7). This suggest that the government in Te...
This problem is a direct result of the “gray areas” that make it difficult to tell the difference between a common crime and a political crime. It combines the two acts into one, blurring the line of distinction (Anderson). The government being attacked sees it as a common criminal attack on its sovereignty, while the terrorist sees it as a legitimate means to an end. The government behind which the terrorist is trying to...
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 National Rifle Association (NRA), recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of 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.” The NRA adheres to the belief that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms. Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have confirmed those beliefs. In spite of whether one personally adheres to these interpretations of the amendment or not, the fact is there are over two hundred million guns in this country. Moreover, there are over seventy-five million firearm owners. In addition to the NRA’s political activity for second amendment rights, it has fulfilled a service, as since its inception, it had been the premier firearms education organization in the world by providing firearms safety and training.
...elling example of how citizens took the privilege of owning weapons for their own security in the home and nation, and used it for venomous reasons. A concept that was effective in the eleventh century lost its value as citizens began to ignore their responsibilities as gun owning United States citizens. The Federalist foresaw that citizens were going to expunge their right, yet it was still ratified in the Constitution. The discernment of a plan to execute seven individuals conveys how citizens have ignored both the meaning of their rights and their responsibilities. A few individual’s decision to configure the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, consequentially led to a stringent of regulations placed on gun owners. “Violence is an evil thing, but when the guns are all in the hands of me without respect for human rights, then men are really in trouble”- Louis L’Amour.
This debate has produced two familiar interpretations of the Second Amendment. Advocates of stricter gun control laws have tended to stress that the amendment’s militia clause guarantees nothing to the individual and that it only protects the states’ rights to be able to maintain organized military units. These people argue that the Second Amendment was merely used to place the states’ organized military forces beyond the federal government’s power to be able to disarm them. This would guarantee that the states would always have sufficient force at their command to abolish federal restraints on their rights and to resist by arms if necessary. T...
In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress sprang into action. Within a month, U.S. lawmakers overwhelmingly approved the USA Patriot Act of 2001, giving law enforcement and intelligence agent’s broader authority to fight terrorists operating in the United States.
Since the days before the American Revolution, there has always been a mythical citizen armament mentality within the United States, in the idea that everyday people would confront Native Americans along with the British army (Spitzer 10). This is further outlined in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which allows for the people to “keep and bear Arms” within “a well regulated Militia” (Spitzer 19). The amendment was originally meant to satisfy citizens who wanted to establish a state militia system separate from the federal standing army in the idea of having more individual power (Spitzer 29). Furthermore, in 2008, a conservative Supreme Court that had been mostly appointed by Republican Presidents ruled in this idea of individual power when it declared, for the first time, an individual right to own a gun. However, it is important to note that this 2008 Supreme Court decision, D.C. v. Heller, broke from precedent by moving away from the original meaning of the Amendment with the militia. The decision, by breaking from historical context, strongly fed the already existing myth that American citizens have always been heroes wielding guns, an ideological construct that is engrained within the society (Spitzer
Professional champions of civil rights and civil liberties have been unwilling to defend the underlying principle of the right to arms. Even the conservative defense has been timid and often inept, tied less, one suspects, to abiding principle and more to the dynamics of contemporary Republican politics. Thus a right older than the Republic, one that the drafters of two constitutional amendments the Second and the Fourteenth intended to protect, and a right whose critical importance has been painfully revealed by twentieth-century history, is left undefended by the lawyers, writers, and scholars we routinely expect to defend other constitutional rights. Instead, the Second Amendment’s intellectual as well as political defense has been left in the unlikely hands of the National Rifle Association (NRA). And although the NRA deserves considerably better than the demonized reputation it has acquired, it should not be the sole or even principal voice in defense of a major constitutional provision.
America has always been about guns, you see it on TV, in movies, video games, everywhere one looks they see a gun. It makes one wonder what it would have been like to live back then to see what it was like to live in a world with few weapons. One would think that gun violence would have been non-existent unlike now when it is everywhere. The author also discusses how during the period of the revolution through the war of 1812, all state governments demanded that all militia members give detailed reports on their military readiness. These reports were know more accurately a...
In response to the attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, Congress passed...