Good Evening, In this email, I will be addressing a few issues that we discussed today in class. The first argument you made was that the right to bear arms only applies to militias. Well to address that I want to quote the entire 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.” When the founding fathers created the constitution they made sure they were so very precise down to the comma. In the second amendment, it says a well-regulated militia but there is a comma after militia. Then it goes on to say being necessary to the security of a free state with a comma after that. Finally, it states that it's the right of the people to bear …show more content…
So if you want to accept the premise that the second amendment was meant for muskets, the founding fathers would have had to be so stupid that had never ever witnessed or anticipated future advancements in weaponry. Which is just completely asinine considering they created a country that is now the biggest superpower on earth. I would like to give you an example of weapons that were both semi-automatic and fully automatic that were around at that time. The first one was the Belton flintlock which was created during that revolutionary war that could fire up to 20 rounds with one pull of the trigger in about five seconds. You could also look at the girandoni air rifle which had a 22 round high capacity magazine that could be fired in about 30 seconds. This was also created in the revolutionary war and was later famously used by Thomas Jefferson to basically outfit the Lewis and Clark expedition. You could also look at the puckle gun an early Gatling gun that was created 60 years before the revolutionary war. Finally, I talked about the pepperbox revolvers which could hold over 20 rounds and were developed hundreds of years before the constitution. Not only were the founding fathers aware of these weapons they
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights granted U.S. citizens the right to bear arms. This amendment was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789. It’s original intent was so civilians could use their household weapons for military duty or for their own defense. Much has changed since 1789. Would our founding fathers enact this amendment if citizens had the guns we have today? Would they consider such an amendment if citizens were killing each other on the street, in schools and other public places? There is strong interest on the issue of gun control. Taya Kyle states her views on the subject in her article 'American Sniper ' Widow: Gun Control Won 't Protect Us. My beliefs on the subject clash greatly with hers because I regard gun control as necessary to preserve our safety.
Some people will argue that the US Constitution allows citizens to bear arms only for a well regulated militia, A militia being an army composed of ordinary citizens. This is true that militia is necessary to the security of a free state. They also proclaim that the provision “The constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” the Second Amendment does not mention handguns by explaining that carrying a concealed handgun increases the chances of a confrontation escalating and turning lethal. Gun control supporters maintain the thought and believe that the use of handguns is not stated in the constitution and is considered dangerous. Many also believe that it is too easy to get a gun. Many believe this. but they are sadly mistaken.
Left, right, Liberal, Conservative, Democratic, Republican. There are a lot of synonyms for the sides of our nation divided. Divided on many things: religion, political views, morals, etc.. For a nation that prides ourselves on extraordinary security and unity, it is quite ironic that so many issues can cause such distress and uproar within communities. One such issue is gun control. As a white male in a middle-lower class family that has never owned a gun, I may be somewhat biased. Objectively as I can, I am going to report the facts and more importantly, try to find the core issues at play.
The way that an individual interprets the wording of the Second Amendment influences their point of view on who has the right to "keep and bear arms" (Amendment 2). The controversy brought on by the Second Amendment is because the Second Amendment does not clearly define whom "the people" are. This ambiguity has left room for action by legislative bodies and the courts to pass laws and make interpretations that influence the way this Amendment is applied and enforced. The Second Amendment says, "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 2).
America—the land of the free and the home of the brave. Not only are these words sung in the national anthem, but they can even be considered a motto for the country. In the US, residents and citizens have many rights that people in other countries can only dream about. They have the right to practice freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and many other freedoms thanks to the founding fathers and the United States Constitution. But there are some very controversial rights as well. What about the second amendment – the right to bear arms? While America is considered one of the freest countries in the world, we might ask ourselves: is it too free? Although the right to bear arms is a constitutional right, the safety of the nation is far more important. America should use Australia as a model when it comes to gun laws. Stricter, more extensive background checks, requiring permits and training, and the prohibition of automatic and semi-automatic guns must be enforced in order to help lower crime rates and ensure American citizen’s safety.
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 United State of America, established by the Founding Father who lead the American Revolution, accomplished many hardship in order to construct what America is today. As history established America’s future, the suffering the United State encountered through history illustrate America’s ability to identify mistakes and make changes to prevent the predictable. The 2nd Amendment was written by the Founding Father who had their rights to bear arms revoked when they believe rising up to their government was appropriate. The Twentieth Century, American’s are divided on the 2nd Amendment rights, “The right to bear arms.” To understand why the Founding Father written this Amendment, investigating the histories and current measures may help the American people gain a better understanding of gun’s rights in today’s America.
From this amendment it is apparent that the founders of our country knew in 1791 that guns did and would continue to play a role in the lives of Americans. Things haven't really changed that much.
As violence and murder rates escalate in America so does the issue of gun control. The consequence of this tragedy births volatile political discourse about gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the question is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote, “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.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment the make and model of firearms has changed dramatically and so has the philosophies of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle-loading musket used to primarily protect families or solely for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the second amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of gun control articles having been written , still the gun control issue remains unresolved. History tells us gun control debates will be in a stalemate until our judicial system defines or rewrites the Second Amend. This paper will examine the history of the Second Amendment, and attempt to define the framers intent, gun control legislation and look at factors that affect Americans on this specific issue...
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...
I do think that freedom needs to be won more than once. It shouldn’t need to though. Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution which have our freedoms, the 10 amendments. Our soldiers even fought for our freedom. America isn’t free anymore. My dad’s friend’s friend said that he is from South Africa and they have more freedom than we do.
For years proposals for gun control and the ownership of firearms have been among the most controversial issues in modern American politics. The public debate over guns in the United States is often seen as having two side. Some people passionately assert that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns while others assert that the Second Amendment does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. There are many people who insist that the Constitution is a "living document" and that circumstances have changed in regard to an individual’s right to bear arms that the Second Amendment upholds. The Constitution is not a document of total clarity and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its amendments and has left many Americans divided over the true intent.
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.
The debate over gun control in America has constantly brought up over the years due to gunmen killing large amounts of civilizations in shootings. From Columbine to Sandy Hook or the shootings of the two reporters in West Virginia, these public shootings are occurring everywhere. Lawmakers and civilians alike are pushing for increased gun control in hopes of preventing the same tragedies. Anybody that has been affected by the shootings have been pushing Congress and state governments to force new sanctions on government. With the past three years, Congress has shot down all the laws despite the large amounts of public support. Adding more gun control isn’t going to stop the mass shootings from happening.
Listverse,. '10 Arguments For Gun Control - Listverse '. N.p., 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2014.