They often assert that the term "militia" should now be defined as each state's National Guard or Reserves. On the other hand, anti gun control advocates argue that the Second Amendment clearly states that the people have the right to own and bear arms even if they are not part of an organized militia. II. ANTI GUN CONTROL ACTIVISTS VIEWS AND BASIS Anti-gun control activists interpret the Second Amendment as saying that any individual, weather he be in the military or not, should be allowed to own firearms. Anti-gun control activists believe that the constitutional right granted by the Second Amendment should never be taken away because it would completely violate the purpose the bill of rights (LaPierre, 1 of 2).
If we had no guns what's to stop people with a knife or a pipe trying to rob or even kill us? america has a right to own guns and as loyal americans we s... ... middle of paper ... ...nseless people of america defend themselves against a robbery or something else. the answer is that they wouldn't. concealed handguns at least let you have the power to stop and assault directed toward you. If we had no guns we as americans wouldn't be able to protect ourselves against robbers of other things.There are elected officials that are actively engaging in the development of measures to destroy our Constitutional right to bear arms as per the 2nd amendment.
The objections such as gun control laws will not save lives is an argument that most opponents will stick to. However, the opponent’s viewpoint is not accurate and can be easily criticized because we know from the facts that having common sense gun laws can help stop individuals with criminal records and those suffering from mental illness from purchasing a firearm. What I feel plays a big role is lack of knowledge because misunderstanding can be caused by not having the right facts or information. It will be unreasonable to jump to the conclusion and state that gun control laws will not save lives when we know by looking at statistics that it does save
If all law requirements are met, then the “Firearm Owners Protection Act” or FOPA insures that you are able to have possession of any firearm that you own legally (Carter). Also, laid out in the constitution, no government has the power, unless it is specifically granted under its constitution, to prohibit any person from ... ... middle of paper ... ...of the United States (O’Brien). The purpose of our founding fathers was to make it so everyone in the country had a gun if they please and for the government not to take that away illegally, like what happened when America was fighting for its independence. Owning a gun gives Americans a feeling of safety and knowing it is not going to be taken away because of the Second Amendment established by our founding fathers. Allowing America citizens to have possession of their own firearms gives them a sense of protection and safety in their own home.
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." Pro-gun advocates claim that this amendment guarantees their individual right to own a gun, and that gun control laws are therefore a violation of their constitutional rights. In fact, the term "violation of our Second Amendment rights" has become a battle cry in gun lobbyist literature, repeated everywhere in their editorials and essays. However, this raises a fascinating observation. If gun control laws are so obviously a violation of the Second Amendment, then why doesn't the National Rifle Association challenge them on constitutional grounds before the Supreme Court?
However, they are not and more people are continuing to die on a daily basis due to that matter. Congress is continuously discussing ways of preventing convicted felons, mental patients, and illegal aliens from purchasing firearms, but do not fulfill the voters’ wishes of doing so. I feel that this is the government’s way to prevent the United States from becoming overpopulated, because they are not doing anything to stop this problem. On the other hand, if most of the United States population is killed by gunfire, then where is the tax money going to be derived from? In my opinion, there should be a way to eliminate the section of the Second Amendment that gave the citizens of the United States the right to bear arms.
Present Current progress is at a heinous stalemate due to lack of actual knowledge on the matter and blind rage towards the opposing sides. People need to stop assuming information and accepting lies from biased groups, like the National Rifle Association (NRA), whose, “most effective fund-raising strategy was to threaten gun owners that the government was coming to get their guns… [NRA] was fearful its fund-raising machines might grind to a halt if the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual’s right to own guns (Winkler 7). Before even trying to approach solutions, people must first understand how to clearly put the issues of gun control into perspective. Bowman introduces this topic with a very fundamental fact: “Guns are lethal weapons that can be used to commit violent acts. However, guns are not the source of the troubling violence in our society; guns are merely tools that function according to the intention of gun owners.
Gun ownership is about your constitutional right: the 2nd Amendment. Many people may be robbed of their right to bear arms. In Maloney v. Cuomo, the Second Circuit panel held that New York’s ban on in-home possession of Nunchaku violated neither the Second Amendment nor—because it was supported by a rational basis—the Fourteenth Amendment (Blackman and Shapiro 17). During United States v. Emerson, that court decided that the Second Amendment protected an individual right. The Emerson court stated explicitly that the Second Amendment “protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performin... ... middle of paper ... ...s America stand today on gun control today?
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights 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. (Amendment II 1791) 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.
One of these rights allows citizens of this nation to own and operate weapons. Arguments concerning gun control should be silenced because as citizens of America, people have the right to own guns. In the year of 1791, the states ratified the Second Amendment which states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of arms the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Congress 1). What the country approved in 1791 still stands firm today. Because it “shall not be infringed,” the controversy should not even be present in society.