Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Guncontrol argument essay
Controversies of gun control and restrictions
Guncontrol argument essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Guncontrol argument essay
Current Event Article Analysis
Article # 1
Titled: Yes: There are Limits to the right to bear arms
Source: Union Tribune or Signonsandiego
Date: Dec. 21 2007
By: Kristen Rand
Summary/Analysis :
This article discusses the amendment about gun control specifically the right to bear arms. But it isn’t discussing it on the U.S. mainland but instead on the District of Columbia. The Controversy is whether or not the District is bound to the same laws and amendments that the rest of the United States is. The Current law in Columbia is there is a universal ban on guns. So should the U.S. Supreme Court vote to allow citizens to bear arms or should the 30-year-old ban be erased. This article briefly discusses the current rights of mainland American citizens and their rights to bearing arms. Although its an amendment for a citizen of the United States to bear arms most people today probably won’t ever need to or have to. With that being said though gun control in the U.S. is still a problem year in and year out.
I believe that yes we do have a problem with gun control within the United States. And my first thoughts about this issue raised in the article are that the Supreme Court should continue to ban weapons within the District of Columbia. Because if the court votes to o.k. Guns it won’t make the country any better it will just make it self more vulnerable for violent crimes with weapons to take place. Now some might argue that if the United States should impose the same laws on Columbia as it does on its states to make it fair for everyone but I don’t believe that’s the best thing to do in every case. I really don’t see to how not continuing to ban guns within the district of Columbia will make it a better place.
Article # 2
Titled: Political Cartoonists Impact Presidential Races
Source: U.S. News & World Report
Date Feb. 28, 2008
By: Dan Gilgoff
Summary/ Analysis:
This article really caught my attention and my eye. This article is very historical and has facts within it that date back to the 1700’s. The article talks about how political cartoons play a part with an election. Specifically the presidential elections and how each and every year cartoonist depicts the candidates as a some sort of superhuman. I believe that this article gives people some background on political cartoons and how they have helped play a part within the U.
With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.
In 1976, the District of Columbia City Council enacted three of the strictest gun control ordinances in the United States. The ordinances entirely ban the possession of handguns within the District and, while allowing residents to keep rifles and shotguns in their homes, require those guns be kept disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Then in 2003, Dick Heller and five other plaintiffs were recruited by lawyer, Robert Levy, and used to file suit against D.C. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the D.C. Gun Ban violated their Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms." The District Court found that the Second Amendment should not give an individual the right to gun ownership except where the individual is a member of an organized militia and granted the District's motion to dismiss. Heller and the other plaintiffs then appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals then questioned whether the plaintiffs could even challenge the Gun Ban because the requirement was that a plaintiff must have suffered an actual injury due. In D.C. simply wanting to keep a handgun at home I snot enough to challenge the law. The court found that only Heller had a viable case, because he suffered an actual injury when the District denied his application for a handgun permit. The court dismissed the others from the suit because the ban had not actually impacted them yet. The Court of Appeals then considered whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right or a right contingent on membership in a well-regulated militia. The court determined that when Congress passed the Bill of Rights, the term "militia" referred generally and broadly to the...
In Nicholas Carr’s article “How Social Media Is Ruining Politics”, Carr writes about the effects that social media has on politics. In his article, Carr focuses more on the negative effect that social media has when it comes to politics. Some points that he makes about social media include specific examples like the recent presidential campaigns, how other technological advances over the years have effected politics, and the effectiveness that social media has on politics
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.
During the 111th Congress, the gun control debate was looked into by two key Supreme Court decisions. In District of Columbia v. Hel...
In The United States of America there are lots of problems that are plaguing our nation. Gun Control is a problem that there is lots of controversy over. This is a problem that had a fire reignited under it when on December 14, 2012 a school in Connecticut was attacked. Many legislative bills have been introduced since then. (Focus of U.S Gun Control Shifts to States Year after Newtown Shooting) There are lots of issues that we have in our community with Gun Control that we have controversy over: background checks, age, classes, military guns, pistols, shotguns, and rifles. All of these things are apart of the plague in our Nation.
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...
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.
People have questioned gun control long time. Many people wonder if anyone, aside from those who join the law force, should be allowed to carry guns. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Wright 4). Franklin understood that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not uphold their liberty. Some people who argue for gun control state many violent crimes involve guns. Others believe a child could find the gun and something bad could happen to the child or others when a gun is unsafely stored. People who argue against gun control might say there is a huge psychological gap between citizens who shoot to protect themselves or their property and those who go into schools and shoot at others. Criminals will always find a way around gun control laws and will be able to obtain and use guns illegally. The second amendment protects gun rights for individual citizens. Reasonable gun control laws and educational steps can be taken to protect the majority of U.S. citizens. Gun control does not only take guns away from criminals, gun control also limits law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families when necessary.
The debate over the right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment has been a hotly contested issue for many years in American history. The matter has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first; disputed between politicians on the liberal and conservative side along with issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage. The Supreme Court has officially defined the controversial Second Amendment by stating that states have the right to maintain a militia separate from a federally controlled army (Gale Encyclopedia, pg. 155-162). However, “Courts have consistently held that the state and federal governments may lawfully regulate the sale, transfer, receipt, possession, and use of certain categories of firearms, as well as mandate who may and may not own a gun (Gale Encyclopedia, pg. 155-162).” Therefore, the issue is one that is extremely hard to clarify. Which side is right?
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...
There is an American consensus for some form of gun control. “…[F]irearms were involved in two-thirds of all murders in the United States and [t]he United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths…murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology” (Lepore). There might be some far extreme people who think that all guns should be banned but most sane Americans do not think that gun rights should be abolished. Americans regard self-defense as the most compelling reason to have a gun and twenty-two percent of households have handguns in the United States. However many people do think that gun control laws must be enacted and enforced. Pro-gun extremists and the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) must understand that there is a real for many people at the uncontrolled s...
There is no single answer to end the debate on gun control. Many variables must be examined but the evidence presented cannot be ignored. Gun control does not end violence, but makes the law-abiding citizens more vulnerable. In the 1878 Arkansas case of Wilson v. State, a judge stated, “Common sense dictates that inanimate objects, such as guns, are not responsible for human behavior. We don’t hold a match responsible for arson or a camera responsible for pornography. We rightly hold the people who misuse these tools liable. The same should be true for guns.”
Sabato, Larry J. Feeding Frenzy: Attack Journalism and American Politics. Baltimore: Lanahan Publishers, Inc., 1991.