More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay gun control history united states mla scribd
Guns freedom and rights
Essay gun control history united states mla scribd
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Essay gun control history united states mla scribd
Gun Responsibility Can you handle a gun? I will be informing you about gun safety, and why gun control is unnecessary. People are perfectly capable of handling guns, and if proven not, then on their I.D. the should be registered incapable of buying a gun. I will talk to you about why people have the right to bear arms, why guns make the U.S.A. safer, and why we shouldn't take guns away. Many people have been saved by just having a small handgun. We have the right to bear arms for a reason. George Washington said: ..Firearms stand next in importance to the c.onstitu tion itself." They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence when this amendment was passed it was mostly so men could hunt and protect themselves
The right to bear arms is outlined in the 2nd amendment to the US constitution, and currently, the US has the highest gun ownership rates in the world - 9
We are entitled to the right to bear arms and taking that right away would be unconstitutional. Guns are not the cause for all the violence and crimes that have happened over the years. They do not increase the death rates. Children are more likely to die in a car or swimming pool accident then gun related deaths (VerBruggen). The weapons are needed for protection and hunting, owning a gun is not unconstitutional Taking the Second Amendment away or changing it would be unconstitutional and Un American, It is like any other right. This right is one of the reasons why we are the land of the free and home of the brave. “Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both” - Benjamin Franklin
This nation was built on the right to bear arms, but this freedom is more controversial than ever. With all the school shootings and gun violence in America today at some point it may seem that just too take away all guns may be the answer to this problem. In defense, this is not the answer. If someone wants to commit a crime, gun laws will not stop them from obtaining the weapon. It is like a drug. Drugs are illegal, but every day you see someone either with, on, or recovering from a drug habit. What about for defense right to own guns to protect your family if part of your constitutional rights. Rights that are supposed to be unalienable rights. Although in this day in time, they are always trying to take away guns either by trying to pass laws or taxing guns and ammo which almost makes guns unaffordable for middle class normal American families.
Opposing sides have for years fought over the laws that govern firearms. For the purposes of this paper "Gun Control" is defined as policies enacted by the government that limit the legal rights of gun owners to own, carry, or use firearms, with the intent of reducing gun crimes such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated rape, and the like. So defined, gun control understandably brings favorable responses from some, and angry objections from others. The gun control debate is generally publicized because of the efforts of the Pro-Gun Lobby or the Anti-Gun Lobby.
The second amendment grants all Americans the right to bear arms. The ability to hold a firearm at any time as long as the firearm is registered. In the United states, all it takes to hold a firearm is a background check and a safety class. In a short reading from the “American Now” book a short article By Christina Tenuta called Responsible gun ownership saves lives she asks “do Americans really need guns?”, but are the guns really the problem? Although the second amendment requires some decent documents , the qualifications to obtain a firearm needs to be revised to a mental check, a family history check , and also to make it a priority for reinforcement to check on the registered firearm every six to twelve months.
This constitutional right has played a leading role in our country's leadership since the first ten amendments were written. 1787 was the year the leaders of our country assembled to discuss how our country should function. The original 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.” (The Constitution of The United States – Official.” )
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?
Take a look at the history of our country and the role guns have played in it. According to the second amendment gun ownership is perfectly legal and guaranteed as a right. There were and are good reasons for this, luckily they are still practiced today. Back in the day guns used to be for hunting and, on the occasion self defense. But when the colonists of this country had enough of British rule, they picked up there own personal guns and went to war and the British saw first hand how powerful the rough band of average American gun owners were. Our forefathers knew that the general population if armed would be key in winning the war. And it was.
“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
The second amendment states that, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It would not make sense on why we would want to go against the second amendment of the constitution. It is our right for lawful citizens to bear arms. Just because of all the shootings
Gun control in the United States has been a major debate for hundreds of years. Many people believe that guns should be highly regulated while others believe that anyone should have the ability to own one. Each side has a plausible argument. Throughout this essay it will be show how not having gun control can increase violence and death rates, the right for everyone to own a gun is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment, and how over usage of guns has played a role in the diminishing populations of animals.
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.
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.
Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. A vast majority of citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would quickly reduce the threat of crime. Many innocent people feel they have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting. Americans have a constitutional right to own hand guns and stricter laws and licensing will not affectively save lives.
Gun safety is a subject that has been a main topic in the past few years among many, especially within politics. It is something that has become a substantial topic in the past few years due to many shootings and accidents that have occurred with today’s youth. It is a topic that needs to be addressed.