In the 20th century, governments around the world murdered over one hundred seventy million of their own people after they denied citizens the right to the ownership of guns (Macy, 2012). Now, we live in a country where there are a myriad of parties that each support different aspects of gun ownership and gun control. Those who are pro-ownership want citizens to be allowed to own guns. Those who are pro-carry agree and state that citizens should also be allowed to carry concealed weapons. Those who are pro-ban oppose both of the other parties and believe that citizens should be denied ownership of a firearm. This is conceived from an idea of false security and is completely nonsensical. Any and all American citizens, who meet basic requirements, should be allowed to purchase, possess, carry, and conceal a firearm if they so choose. The constitution of the United States supports this argument.
The second amendment to the United States Constitution asserts, “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 can be interpreted in a variety of ways, but no matter how it is interpreted, there is no denial that the constitution declares that the right to own a gun shall not be infringed. The authors of this document, which creates the whole foundation of American society, realized that this is an important right that would one day need defending. That day has come and unfortunately citizens must defend their right to bear arms to their own government and fellow citizens. In order to do so, citizens need to point out that guns have various purposes and there are multiple reasons for ownership.
While firearms are sometimes use...
... middle of paper ...
...r arguments have no value and their claims have been falsified numerous times. Pro-gun rights and pro-carry parties continue to plead for loosened restrictions in order to better their efforts of protection and self-defense. Before you choose your stance, consider this; if faced with a situation where a life was in jeopardy- whether it was yours, one of your family members, or a complete strangers- would you rather stand there, idle and unable to control the situation while a helpless victim died or would you rather stop the attacker by disabling them? The harsh truth is, when a government cannot protect its citizens, the citizens must protect themselves. In a time where new victims are murdered daily, the government is not always able to come to the rescue. Will you choose to exercise your right to carry a gun or will you wait to fall victim to a criminal with one?
The two sides of this argument are the pro and anti gun groups. The anti-gun groups main goals range from more stringent gun control laws to a total ban on handguns. The political supporters of this group are susally liberal democrats and a few other small independedt groups such as Handgun Control Inc. Their main arguments are questionin gth eoriginal intent of the framers of the constituion adn the way of life in the time it was written, and also the purpose of guns in modern siciety. For thte most part, their claims are mainly emotional and use popular incidences adn the high number of people killed annually from firearms and, gun saftey in households. On the other side of the fence is the pro-gun grouuups who lobby to support law abiding citizens' second amendment rights to keep and bear arms. Their suporters tend to be conservative republicans and pro-gun groups. The most popular of these groups is the NRA(National Rifle Association) which is a strong political group consisting of over three million members. Theses groups tend to use statistics and sases wehre lives have been saved by the use of firearms while strongly stressing gun saftey and training programs. They favor strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights. INthsi paper I am taking a stand against gun control. I feel that law abiding citizens should be entitled to their second ammendment rights to keep and bear arms for the purposes of protection of home, property, and person.
“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
Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being committed with guns will be reduced and thus save lives. However while gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, the same laws restricts gun owning citizens who abide by the law; these citizens make up a great majority of the opposing side of this argument. These people argue that the law was made with the individual citizens in mind. This group believes that the Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. One major group that is in strong opposition of stricter gun control laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA argues that having stricter gun control laws will only hinder law-abiding citizens. The final outcome on this debate will mainly depend on how this Amendment is going to be interpreted.
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.
“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.
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states, that since there is a necessity for a Free State and regulated militia, the right of the American people to keep and bear arms would not be infringed by the United States government. One cannot stop and wonder the calamities that are caused by guns in their completely proper usage. This nation needs to have a talk over its malignant obsession with guns.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Thomas Jefferson said this quote almost 200 years ago and to this day it still applies. The right to bear arms was such a priority to the founding fathers of this country that it received the second spot on the list of the basic rights of all Americans. This right is in the process of being restricted in order to supposedly reduce crime and homicide. These gun control laws should not be permitted because they restrict law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms, leave people defenseless when a crime does arise, and have been proven futile in other countries.
An estimated 30,000 people are killed each year by guns in the United States alone according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s). Though there have been some restrictions and laws placed, both the conservative and liberal sides are not pleased with either the lack of action or the fact that there has been too much action that has taken place. “About 38% of U.S. households and 26% of individuals owned at least one gun, with about half of the individuals having 4 or more guns, according to a 2004 survey by the Harvard School of Public Health (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s).” Both sides turn to the one document centered on the argument for evidence to support their side: the Second Amendment.
There is a familiar saying that goes, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”. Punctuation before the end quote. Individuals should be able to protect themselves. Therefore, the 2nd Amendment states that we as citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. First and foremost, the Second Amendment was adopted into the United States Constitution on December 15, 1791. In today’s society, the Second Amendment has become a huge controversy; due to the ongoing debate over guns. However, people tend to forget that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right to own a weapon is not against the law. Surprisingly, “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding”(MacBradaigh, 2013, para. 8). Restrictions on carrying guns in places like schools, courtrooms, and hospitals are more understandable. “The words of the founders make clear they believed the individual right to own firearms was very important: Thomas Jefferson said, “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms” ("NRA-ILA | The Second Amendment", 2013, para. 12). If the Founding Fathers felt the need to address this issue, why shouldn’t the general public do the same? Most importantly, the Second Amendment protects individual rights, not collective. Yet, some people claim differently. Many people believed that the Second Amendment pertained only to “rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body” (MacBradaigh, 2013, para. 2). However, the Bill of Rights was created to protect the rights of individuals, and “in America, rights by definition belong to individuals” (...
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.
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...
Guns have been around for a very long time. People love being able to have the freedom to do what they want, especially when they can possess something that make them feel superior. The introduction of the Second Amendment opens up the controversial, yet well anticipated opportunity for United State citizens to be able to own guns. Americans enjoy the benefit of being able to own guns for decades over people in other countries. People can buy guns and carry them around in public. They own guns for many reasons such as to hunt, to protect themselves, and simply to satisfy their desire of owning a gun, but in recent years, the issue of people carry guns has become a problem. There are so many people get killed by guns in different parts of the country. This raised the alarm to the government to decide whether the regulation of guns should be looked after. These issues, once again, spark out a big debate in America about whether the right to bear arms given by the Second Amendment was handing the states the right to maintain militia units or giving people the rights to possess and carry guns.
Central in the arguments against gun control is its ability to restrict any citizen of the United States the right to own guns which is protected under the constitution. Specifically, due recognition is made to its connection to the 2nd Amendment wherein it seeks to protect the individual liberties of people. This facet also applies to gun ownership regardless of the original objective and intention. “The second amendment from the Bill of Rights grants private citizens the right to bear arms. Thus, people who stand firmly against gun control insist that no legislation, technically, should have the right to take away a citizen’s guns without first repealing the amendment in question” (Groberman 1). A good approach to consider in highlighting this part comes from depriving the citizen of his basic right on the basis of specific presumption that it would be used for violence or crim...
In 1968 Congress passed the Gun Control Act. This act regulates interstate commerce in firearms, making it so that you must be a licensed manufacturer, dealer, or importer. The Gun Control Act was the first attempt at restricting easy access to a firearm. In 1976 the District of Columbia City Council prohibited it’s residents from owning a handgun. Dick Anthony Heller sued the district in 2007 for denying him the right to keep his handgun in his home on Capitol Hill. In June 2008, the Supreme Court ruled the District of Columbia’s handgun ban was unconstitutional. The people of this country believe in their reserved rights, Mr. Heller’s fought for his second amendment right and won, showing the spirit of democracy. Since the Columbine High School shootings in 1999, 27 separate mass shootings have left five or more people dead each time. These randoms acts of violence have taken place in schools (Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech), the workplace (Fort Hood), movie theaters(Aurora, CO) , and even in the church (Charleston, S.C.). Everyday seems to bring new tragedy involving guns, but is it the gun that is killing people or the operator? As with anything, there are pro and cons to the right of own a firearm. With a firearm in your possession, you can protect yourself and your family from just about any threat. Having a gun gives you power over your own life, but this power also extends over someone else life