Former Chief Justice of the United States (1969 – 1986), Warren E. Burger, was published in the January 14, 1990 edition of Parade Magazine for his work entitled, “The Right to Bear Arms”. In his essay, he questions the modern age standards being held for one to purchase a firearm, with an aim to tighten up those regulations. To argue his case he has provided record breaking homicide statistics from 1988 and states that some of the metropolitan centers in the U.S. “have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe”, where strict gun control laws have been placed. To summarize the article, Burger asks the American people to question whether or not the gun laws and regulations in place are adequate enough to “preserve the ‘domestic tranquility’ promised in the constitution”. He gives a specific proposal to put forth regulations for purchasing a firearm and uses the comparison of the regulations that are in place for purchasing an automobile. Additionally, Burger gives background to the Second Amendment to explain why the citizens needed …show more content…
He challenges anyone who would argue his case, in saying, “That we may be ‘over-regulated’ in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and ‘concealed weapons.’” And again with this statement, “‘Saturday night specials’ and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles”. Being direct, but diplomatic, Berger is trying to make a point that people don’t question the need to register a vehicle and enforce laws and standards for the drivers, so why not ask the same of those who wish to possess a
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.
While the political topics most often discussed in the media over the past several years have been about the economy and wars on terror, gun control is still a major issue that is still being debated in Washington. Some congressmen, usually of the liberal persuasion, advocate stricter gun laws that would limit the number of guns on the street and their availability to the public. Other congressmen, usually of the conservative variety, advocate more relaxed gun laws that would increase public access to guns. The arguments over whether or not gun laws should be written to constrict gun sales or enhance gun sales often leads to discussion of the constitution, not only because of its precedence over all other laws and the connotations of claiming a proposal is unconstitutional (and hence clearly un-American,) but because the second amendment exists to guarantee citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Debates over specifics on gun control are superfluous for one simple reason: everyone should have a gun.
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
Taking into account of the recent shooting sprees, the gun control debate has started again. However, people have contemplated: “Why does America need gun laws” and “Why are so many states disagreeing about the restrictions that need to be put in place for civilians looking to purchase firearms.” The reasoning for such contemplation is that the fluxuating strictness of gun laws have led to several incidences within states that have strict gun laws due to the fact that the perpetrators of these incidences have purchased their firearms either from black markets, or states where the severity of gun control is at minimal levels.
An estimated 30,000 people are killed each year by guns in the United States alone according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s). Though there have been some restrictions and laws placed, both the conservative and liberal sides are not pleased with either the lack of action or the fact that there has been too much action that has taken place. “About 38% of U.S. households and 26% of individuals owned at least one gun, with about half of the individuals having 4 or more guns, according to a 2004 survey by the Harvard School of Public Health (Gun Control, Funk & Wagnall’s).” Both sides turn to the one document centered on the argument for evidence to support their side: the Second Amendment.
Former Chief Justice of the United States (1969 – 1986), Warren E. Burger, was published in the January 14, 1990 edition of Parade Magazine for his work entitled, “The Right to Bear Arms”. In his essay, he questions the modern age standards being held for one to purchase a firearm, with an aim to tighten up those regulations. To argue his case he has provided record breaking homicide statistics from 1988 and states that some of the metropolitan centers in the U.S. “have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe”, where strict gun control laws have been placed.
Currently, The United States of America is at war against 27 words that were written by James Madison in 1789. The Bill of Rights is known as the first 10 amendments to The Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights states the rights of its 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”(Madison). Many people have argued that “to keep and bear arms” is not very obvious. James Madison is not alive to clear up this misunderstanding that, for hundreds of years, has caused controversies. Some experts argue that, gun ownership laws should be relaxed because this country cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens. Others say that gun ownership laws should not be relaxed because it would increase the number of weapons and increase the availability of weapons for criminals. And thus, the debate over the right to bear arms continues, again.
The right to own a gun has evolved over the years. Owning a gun is not just about possessing it, it’s about knowing you can protect yourself. Every person has the right to protect themselves and feel safe, t...
The second amendment in the constitution of the United States, declares that all law abiding citizens have the right to purchase and bear arms. This means that firearms will be allowed in citizens homes for use in self-defense against intruders. State governments have the power to take this amendment one step further by allowing open or even concealed carry of personal weapons. Our modern society has fought restlessly over the meaning and practice of this amendment, and some citizens believe that this amendment should be removed from the constitution. I believe that this amendment is the greatest amount of danger, and if altered could possibly cause a domino effect to the other amendments.
“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns. (Obama)” This said prior to Obama’s presidency, in the 1990’s, is still a topic that is constantly questioned today. Many American’s feel the need to seek ownership of weapons as a source of protection; While others believe that private ownership of guns will do nothing more but heighten the rate of violence due to people taking matters into his or her own hands. Philosophy professor Jeff McMahan agrees with Obama’s statement in regard to the ownership of guns. In his New York Times editorial titled “When Gun ‘Control’ Is Not Enough,” McMahan provides evidence to support his theory of the dangers that quickly follow when allowing the community to own guns legally. McMahan, throughout the text, shows responsible reasoning and allows the reader the opportunity to obtain full understanding and justifies his beliefs properly.
Gun rights and gun control have long been the topics of popular debate here in US. Strict gun control laws that ban guns/ make them difficult to obtain for law abiding citizens in New York City are not the solution to the problem of violent gun crime. These laws do more harm than good by infringing the rights of and criminalizing law abiding citizens. By not allowing law abiding citizens to defend themselves efficiently, these laws make them ideal targets for the outlaws (Journal of Business and Economic Research). Banning or restricting firearms has no correlation with the number of deaths or suicide (Harvard Journal Of Law and Public Policy). One of the main arguments for strict gun control is that violence should not be met by violence; doing so would only increase it (Civil Liberties Review). They also argue that strict gun control is something that the majority of the population wants hence it is beneficial (New Labor Forum of Murphy Institute). My paper is going to focus mainly on New York, with some discussion of other places.
George Washington once said, “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people 's liberty teeth and keystone under independence …”. In the United States, Gun violence has become a reoccurring issue impacting the nation immensely. As we look into the past ten years, school shooting and public shootings have played out in the media stirring up a debate on gun violence. Because of these ongoing evil attacks, firearms are seen as the killer rather than the person who is firing the gun. Many are fighting for gun rights by using the points of the Second Amendment, the government’s control, and stricter gun laws.
Throughout the course of history, the gun control debate has been an issue that has been dealt with since the age of the colonial Americans and it is also being disputed today. The US currently holds over 200 million guns and has weaker gun laws in comparison to other developed nations, mostly because the Supreme Court has advocated gun control rights. Not many actions were taken until numerous gun shootings and incidents revolving around guns have occurred. These incidents have aroused a pleading to pass gun control laws, but the Supreme Court is against passing of the laws. Although the Supreme Court considers it unnecessary to have them, recent tragedies and past instances clearly support the implication of gun control laws.
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.
There are three ways to approach gun-control: first, it is the citizens’ constitutional right to own firearms; second, firearms kill - get rid of them; and third, to have no opinion and not deal with the issue. Whichever view people have on gun-control, they must first understand the facts and statistics of these issues. Charlton Heston’s “Is Freedom Lost on the Next Generation?” and Paul Craig Robert’s “Unarmed and Unsafe” both study the opposing side of gun-control with facts and logic.