“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.” These words have become forgotten as individuals, former member of the U.S. Supreme Court John Paul Stevens, attempt to strip away the individual aspect of the second amendment. Gun control is not effective as it has not been shown to actually reduce the number of gun-related crimes. However, if more Americans were to purchase a gun, be trained to use the gun, and carry the gun, gun violence would begin to decrease.
The second amendment was incorporated under the fourteenth in the landmark case McDonald v. Chicago. According to The Fourteenth amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Prior to this the city of Chicago had infringed upon the rights of Otis McDonald by making gun registration required and by making handguns illegal. McDonald’s house had been broken into five times. He had legally owned shotguns but felt that the shots were to wild, to be fried in the home. Consequently, McDonald, a law abiding citizen, was unable to purchase a hand gun to protect himself in the home, infringing upon the castle law, to defend themselves against an intruder, free from legal responsibility/prosecution for the consequences of the force used. This court case set a standard that states must abide by the second amendment, furthering the law abiding citizen’s right to carry a firearm and defend themselves.
Washington D.C. was believed by many to be the American ideal until the controversial Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 that forced citizens to have guns unloaded, disassembled, or locked up. It ...
... middle of paper ...
...ol: Update." Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services, 17 Dec. 2012. Web. 13 Feb. 2014. .
House Of Representatives. Committee On Ways And Means, Hearing, April 16, 18, And May 14, 15, And 16, 1934 (H.R. 9066). Congressional Library
Levy, Leonard (1970). Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights: The Incorporation Theory (American Constitutional and Legal History Series). Da Capo Press. ISBN 0-306-70029-8.
McDonald v. Chicago. Supreme Court of the United States. 28 June 2010. Print.
"The Second Amendment Goes to Court." eHistory @ The Ohio State University. February 2008. 14 Feb 2014, 09:18 http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/origins/timeline.cfm?articleid=7
"Supreme Court Hearing." Supreme.gov. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. .
U.S. Const., am.II
U.S. Const., am.XIV
United States is a country that has problems with gun control, and this issue has many debates between whether or not people should be allowed to carry a gun on them. This free county not only for speech and religion, but also allows people to have the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment of the United States was written by our Founding Fathers,“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” (Government). The main purpose of the Second Amendment when our Founding Fathers wrote this amendment was to help the American citizens to defend themselves from the government at that time, and other countries from invading their properties. However, the Second Amendment could be the opposite of what our Founding Fathers wanted it to be in the twenty-first century, because many criminals are taking advantage of the right to carry guns, which in example results with the purpose of showing off with their friends, revenge for their gang’s members, or try to be like their favorite hero in the movie they had watched. On July 20, 2012, a massive shooting occurred inside of a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The tragedy happened during a midnight screening of the film The Dark Knight Rises which killed twelve people and injuring seventy others. In response, this alarmed our government to rethink about the current gun control law in America. In A Well Regulated Militia by Saul Cornell, the author informed to his audience the different views of gun ownership in early America, which part was the most important part of the debate, how did slavery affect the debate over militias in the South, the Continental army officer’s views, and the arguments be...
Do the First and Fourth Amendments Protect?" Current Issues & Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument with Readings. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin's, 1999. 316-324.
People have been debating the meaning of the Second Amendment since its ratification on December 15, 1791. One side feels that the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect collective rights as seen in ”United States v. Miller,” while the opposing side feels that it was meant to protect individual
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 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...
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
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.
Are you willing to sit back and become a victim of violent crime or allow the government to tamper with your civil liberties? In recent years, anti-gun politicians have attempted to control guns in the name of crime prevention this is an assault on the Second Amendment rights of US 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.” Not only did our Founding Fathers focus their debate on the right of people to keep and bear arms, they devoted energy to encouraging future generations to defend theses freedoms. In defense of gun ownership, Alexander Hamilton said, “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” During our country’s development hundreds of law-abiding citizens were able to take up arms against lawless mobs to defend themselves, their family, their homes, and their businesses. They did the job law enforcement simply could not do. Lives were saved. Robberies were prevented. Homes and businesses were defended and left intact, all thanks to the Second Amendment to our constitutional, the right to keep and bear arms.
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...
The issue of gun control has always been a hot topic among the American public. Most everyone, if asked, will tell you that gun control is an issue needed to be dealt with because of the event that took place at Columbine High School back on April 20th, 1999. The American public has been wrestling with gun control long before then. If we take a look back at August 1st, 1966 at the University of Texas, a man armed with a hunting rifle committed one of the most violent mass murders in history. Gun control refers to the Government placing restrictions on the American public to buy, own and sell firearms. If we read the constitution, our second amendment right is the right to bear arms. This has been the ongoing controversy of this issue. We the people say our constitutional right to buy and own firearms is being seized from us. The government is using our society’s violent incidents as cover to place restrictions and bans on firearms. This essay’s purpose is to provide proof that buying and owning firearms is our legal constitutional right and that our government is trying to attack the wrong angle when trying to fight crime involving guns in the United 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.” The right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence would ultimately fail given the previous experiments of gun control in England and in numerous states.
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.
Nevertheless, guns are very dangerous and they are used in all sorts of criminal activities already. Therefore, the benefits of having a gun outweigh the drawbacks of not having a gun. No matter what each individual’s beliefs are in regard as to whether gun control should or should not be enforced, the Second Amendment of the Constitution gives each person the right to bear
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.
Lately, Gun control has been one of the most talked about topics in the nation. It is a very sensitive and controversial topic due to gun crime. These new restrictions not only affect people who oppose firearms, but especially the people who depend on it for protection.The right to bear arms is the peoples right to bear arms for their own defense. These are also the “political writings” of John Locke and many others.The concept of the “Right to bear arms” was derived from the Bill of Rights in 1689 which says: That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law. Citizens have a right to bear arms gun control laws will not prevent gun violence Death by gun rates were lower before gun control was out into effect.