Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The second amendment gun culture
Gun control debate and the 2nd amendment
Gun ownership arguments
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The second amendment gun culture
Gun violence is at an all time high in today’s American and around the world. Effectively changing the nature of man to kill another man is somewhat impossible a goal to achieve with laws and policies. However laws and policies can be put in place to curb the growing deaths from gun related violence and to a lesser percent gun related accidents. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." On one hand some believe this to mean the personal right of the people to own firearms, while the establishments counter argument is that a well regulated militia referred to in the amendment …show more content…
The author Barrett Paul M quotes the former member of the U.S. Supreme Court John Paul Stevens who advocates changing the Second Amendment’s confusing language to clarify that it only applies to those serving in a militia as stated “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed”(Barrett). The Second Amendment is the backbone of the debate, and the changes that Stevens suggests brings to attention the fact that the Second Amendment refers to an armed citizen militia, and not personal gun …show more content…
I would seem this is an issue that is focused on public and neutral to partisan bias. “Simple regulation of firearms—requiring permits to carry them, for example is seen by many as an infringement of their rights. Thus, moderate gun advocates are often drowned out by those who oppose any controls on guns. “There are nearly three hundred million privately owned firearms in the United States: a hundred and six million handguns, a hundred and five million rifles, and eighty-three million shotguns. That works out to about one gun for every American”( Lepore). But there are so few laws that are enforced to control this mass stock piling of arms. “A federal ban on the possession, transfer, or manufacture of semiautomatic assault weapons, passed in 1994, was allowed to expire in 2004”( Lepore). The majority of gun owners who own more than one gun are the loudest minority in fighting for the right to keep there
The U.S. should not have gun control laws. The Second Amendment to the Constitution 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 amendment has been around since 1791, and there has been gun control almost as long as it's been around. The National Rifle Association is an advocate of the Second Amendment and an opponent of those who propose restrictions on guns. Even Presidents Reagan and Bush are members, and Nixon, Eisenhower, and Kennedy were also members. Why do people feel the need to own a handgun? One reason is heritage. For as long as this country has been around, there have been gun owners, to defend themselves and to hunt for food. Buying, owning, or carrying a handgun doesn't hurt anyone. Until a person commits a crime, he/she is free to choose what he/she wants to do. Even if guns were completely banned from the U.S.A., people would still find a way to get them. Criminals would get guns. They would have their way, and there would be nothing we could do about it. We would have no way to defend ourselves. What is gun control to you? To me, it is the unconstitutional regulation and banning of guns to try to keep the crime rates in this country down. Does it work? Some gun laws are okay and they may work to some extent, but not to the extent that was intended. As for most of these gun laws such as the Brady Law, it serves no purpose. It is only there to make our lawmaking bodies and those of us who are too naive to see the truth feel better. Do you really think that the Brady Law keeps handguns out of the hands of criminals?
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 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.
history with a right to bear arms. Finally one can see the conflict of views
The first amendment is the cornerstone of our American society founded years ago by our forefathers. Without the first amendment many ideas, beliefs, and groups could not exist today. The first amendment guaranteed the people of the United States the freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and freedom of petition. Although the first amendment guarantees us, Americans the freedom of speech, we cannot use it to cause others harm. This amendment has helped shaped Americans into what we are today, because of our right to assemble, speak freely, and worship as we please.
Civilian ownership of firearms has for more than two hundred years been the very cornerstone upon which the liberty of the public has been supported. The very reason that Americans have never suffered a tyranny on the scale of Nazi-Germany has been due to the proliferation of firearms in the hands of the general public.
The way that an individual interprets the wording of the Second Amendment influences their point of view on who has the right to "keep and bear arms" (Amendment 2). The controversy brought on by the Second Amendment is because the Second Amendment does not clearly define whom "the people" are. This ambiguity has left room for action by legislative bodies and the courts to pass laws and make interpretations that influence the way this Amendment is applied and enforced. The Second Amendment says, "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 2).
The Second Amendment is often misinterpreted because of the wording; people believe it only applies to the military or militia. The Second Amendment reads; “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.” On June 26th, 2008, the Supreme Court established, in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, that citizens are the militia and the Second Amendment is an individual right. McDonald v. Chicago, set the precedent that the amendment covers every state and locality—not just federal enclaves (Levy 1). The Second Amendment has two clauses, the Operative Clause and the Prefatory Clause. The Operative Clause is the actual protected right and the Prefatory Clause is t...
Eighty-nine people die from gun violence in the United States every day according to the Brady Campaign , from school children to victims of domestic violence to people going about their daily lives. As we mourn the lives of those killed in incidents of gun violence across the country, we need to take action. We should all do everything in our power to keep tragedies like this from happening again. When it comes to addressing mass shootings, we need new answers
"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." second amendment to the United States Constitution, 1791. Within this famous paragraph lies the right that Americans both cherish and fear, the right to have a gun. Of all the civil rights endowed by Bill of Rights and it’s amendments, none has been as been opposed so hostile and defended so staunchly as the Second Amendment.
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
The preamble of the amendment states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” This is the source of most of the trouble regarding the 2nd amendment. The majority of gun control activists say that since it starts out with addressing a militia, then the amendment is limited to government regulated militias. At the same time, it goes on to say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” At this point it should be clear that the amendment is talking about everybody individually, giving everyone the right to own firearms without restrictions. On the other hand, the anti-gunners, think that it advances their argument even more. In the time period that the Constitution was written, the formal militia had to supply their own weapons and ammunition (Dowlut). On account of this, gun control supporters believe that was the reason for the 2nd amendment, but now, since the government supplies our militias (national guard) with guns and ammunition, the amendment is not needed, and the citizens should be denied their firearms. As sound as this argument seems it is easily defeated by the 10th amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The key part of the amendment isn’t the central meaning; it is the physical words at the end, “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” If the logic of the gun control advocates is applied to the situation, then the amendment just said the same thing twice, the states - meaning the actual states - and the people - meaning the states representing the people. Furthermore, if the founding fathers really did mean only to
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. T...
Gun violence in America has escalated drastically over the years. But it seems the only time we are outraged about the shootings or abuse of the 2nd Amendment is when there is a massacre of innocent people or a cop misusing his power and killing an innocent black person. “There have been at least 110 mass shootings in the US since 2009 at least 33 of which occurred in a public place” (TJF). After the vigils and outcries for change for change that fall on deaf ears, the problem is ignored and the abuse of the 2nd Amendment continues. There is no reform but instead there is another battle between the NRA, Congress, and the President of the United States. Gun regulation is constantly debated and is a very subjective topic because of the differing
The second amendment states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Founding Fathers included this in the Bill of Rights because they feared the Federal Government might oppress the population if the people did not have the means to defend themselves as a nation or individuals.
The Second Amendment to the United States constitution 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”(U.S. Constitution). The founding fathers included this in our bill of rights because they feared the federal government might oppress the population if the people did not have the means to defend themselves as a nation and as individuals.