More handpicked essays just for you.
The controversy of the second amendment
The controversy of the second amendment
Open carry gun law on college campuses essays
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The memorable Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” The right to bear arms is a right given to us by our founding fathers in the second amendment of our Bill of Rights. With acts of terrorism threatening nations worldwide, security becomes a factor of essence in the laws of a country. Some people call for the restriction of guns and gun-related products in order to promote security by disarming the people. Others have called for quite the opposite, arm your people by giving them the liberty to protect themselves so they can help first before the government can. The right to protect yourself is a right that any person with integrity will value because of their …show more content…
Waiting for a police officer to arrive during a home invasion is a dreadful position to be in, even more so without a weapon. These type of situations are the pivotal moments in life where perspective is likely to broaden. As stated earlier, there are very little Concealed Gun Carriers involved in crimes which leads us to believe that criminals do not bother with registering for a gun. So what is the Campus-Carry law really doing to our society? It is enabling our fellow peers to defend themselves against the disobeyers of the law! Anti-gun activists hide behind their protest by saying that there are “few—if any—clear examples of mass shootings thwarted by armed students or faculty members.” While this may hold the slightest of merit to it, it is because Campus-Carry is merely a recent adaptation, at least in Texas. Even so, it does not excuse taking the right away of millions of Americans to protect their beloved ones. Whether armed students or faculty stand to make a difference in the moment of a terrorist attack, is not completely clear, but it helps to give people the option to defend themselves in the case of an
In “Stop Worrying About Guns in the Classroom. They’re Already here.” the author, Erik Gilbert, argues in favor of the law allowing the concealed carry of firearms in college campuses. Gilbert claims that it’s futile to be “worried by the prospect of having guns in [the] classroom” because he believes that even before the bill was passed, some students and faculty were already carrying firearms to campus (Gilbert). Furthermore, he insinuates that despite the presence of firearms, there were no incidents of student or faculty causing harm. To support his argument, the author provides incidents which have occurred over the last decade at his campus, such as accidental discharge of guns in dorms, firearms in student’s vehicles, and one faculty member who was discovered to be in possession of a gun in an on-campus facility. Considering these incidents and previous knowledge of “prevailing regional attitudes towards guns”, the author assumes that significant numbers of students, and possibly faculty, bring guns on campus regularly (Gilbert). As for those who are afraid due to the new law, he declares to them that firearm permit-holders are not dangerous by comparing the rate of their crimes to that of police officers. He also reasons that permit holders need to be at least 21 to qualify—claiming that the more mature students qualify—and have background checks performed.
While the opposing team fears that this law may bring more deaths, and will not solve any issues but create new ones, it will also make campuses an unsafe place for students and faculty. The majority of the students who attend universities or in general do not have a license to carry a weapon, but that still does not stop how unsafe people feel in classrooms, or in their dorms. In my opinion, I am someone who opposes the campus carry law. I believe that weapons bring nothing but danger and fear, and many other students and professors feel the same way.
This is called the right to bear arms and is guarantee under the U.S. Constitution. The second amendment clearly 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.” The first ten amendments are also known as the Bill of Rights. Therefore, the pro-gun activists are right. The right to bear arms like the right to free speech should be protected. However, the pro-gun activists do not the fully understand the reasons for this right. The right is for protection not from burglars but from Indians and the state. At the time the U.S. Constitution was written, many American families were living on the frontier lines where there would be a continual threat from Indians. The U.S. had a standing army but it was too far and is not readily available to protect these families when Indians would attack. This made it necessary for families to have guns in the home. The Indians were an external threat. An internal threat was the government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that if a government failed to protect its citizen and instead became the enemy, the citizens had the right to overthrow it. After the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers did not want to replace an oppressing army which was the British with one of their own. They felt that an armed citizen was the best type of army. This is what was meant by a well regulated militia. The militia would consist of every able-bodied man who was trained using their own arms for purposes of local defense and in actual military events. This local well regulated militia is the equivalent of the National Guard. In present times, we no longer have the need to protect ourselves from Indians. As for an oppressed government, we have our National Guard. The original intent of the right to bear arms does not apply to modern
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.
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.
Gun-control laws are a very controversial topic right now in the U.S., especially when it comes to allowing concealed-carry holders on college campuses. Nevertheless, guns should be permitted for concealed carry on college campuses if the carriers have concealed-carry licenses because mass shootings occur mostly in gun-free zones. There have been many incidents in which concealed-carry holders have disarmed attackers, and concealed-carry holders are overwhelmingly law-abiding citizens. However, the argument’s opponents believe guns should not be allowed on college campuses for various reasons, including: professors might be afraid to issue bad grades, a gun may go off by accident, college
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
“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 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...
Being a young American I have witnessed many problems with growing up in this great country of ours. We have homeless people who can't find work, rising inflation rates, an unbalanced budget, and more importantly, a problem with guns.
Concealed weapons on college campuses have been a debatable issue for a long time now. “Statistically, colleges and universities are relatively safe environments for students, faculty, and administrators”, but will concealed carry affect this (Kirszner and Mandell, 626)?Supporters argue that being able to carry a concealed weapon lowers the percentage of shooting or accidents and that it is simply constitutional to have the right to bear arms. On the other hand, non-supporters believe that this will affect the way of learning in school, and raise anxiety. While it is true that having a concealed weapon can make the person holding it feel safe, we should not allow it because it may bring more negative rather than positive things into the college campuses.
Due to the recent disruption of violent crimes on campus, many citizens that are pro-gun activist have suggested that both the students and teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons on school campuses. Those who are with guns allowed on school campuses claim that their rights have been violated for the reason that many college campuses refuse to allow weapons of any kind on their property. The Constitution of The United States of America already grants citizens the right to carry guns with them. It is not appropriate for guns to be in a vulnerable area such as a college campus or any University. There are already too many guns available to the public or easy to get any kind of gun, and allowing them on
There is one reaction that is always to be expected after a mass shooting, and that is the call for an increase in control. This can be defined in numerous different ways, and can include a great deal of different aspects. People who call for an increase gun control in the wake of mass shootings are, in general, people who believe that more guns means more crimes. Gun control advocates cite studies that state, “Higher gun prevalence is associated with an increase in homicides, and suicides, and possibly even more residential burglaries” (Ludwig 17). Often times, after mass shootings, those in favor of more gun control look to countries like Australia, Canada, Great Britain and Japan, and their strict gun policy and cite this as the direction
Along with many other reasons, guns do not need any more restrictions. No one seems to be taking into account all of the other means of deaths and the death tolls of those actions. Many of the murders in the United States are committed with a variety of resources such as hammers and clubs, drugs, and even vehicles. According the FBI crime files, in 2006 the amount of deaths executed with clubs and hammers were 618, meanwhile the amount of murders rifles were used in was only 438 (Hawkins, “FBI: More People killed…”). This clearly portrays that rifles are not as much of a problem as it may seem. It shows that something so simplistic and common can cause more deaths than a sophisticated rifle. No matter what the weapon may be, simple or complex,
Growing up in Brooklyn, NY I keenly became aware that in my own neighborhood there were educational disparities, street violence, and police brutality. Due to the widespread presence of these issues while walking home from school or going grocery shopping with my mother, I also learned there was internal conflict between the people that lived in the community and those who were appointed to represent them- the congressional representative of my district. My premature awareness of these issues caused me to question who had the ability to solve the problems of my community? I discovered that the television show “Law and Order” offered a possible answer. As the youngest child of my household, my older siblings affinity for the show naturally steered