The Right to Bear Arms How many of us want the U.S. government to have the right to tell us what to do, and when w can do it. There are probably not many who would agree that the government should have that right. Though having gun control laws is not to that extreme, some would say it is the first step. Growing up in a small town, and also growing up with guns my whole life I was one of those people who did not want gun control laws. Then after reading two articles that discussed this topic I found that I have been ignorant about this subject. I read the articles that discussed gun control by J. Warren Cassidy and Nan Desuka. In the first article "The Case for Firearms" by J. Warren Cassidy, the author argues that the right to bear arms is given to American citizens by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Cassidy argues that millions of Americans believe that the Second Amendment is just as crucial for the maintenance of democracy as the First Amendment Cassidy writes, "the authors of the Bill of Rights knew that a democratic republic has a right-indeed, a need- to keep and bear arms. Millions of American citizens just as adamantly believe the Second Amendment is crucial to the maintenance of the democratic process" (418). Cassidy also believes that there is no high-court decision that has found grounds to challenge this basic freedom of keeping and bearing arms. The author also argues that there has not been a reduction of crime thanks to new gun-control measures, "violent crime continues to rise in cities like New York and Washington even after severe firearm-control statues were rushed into place" (419) . In this thesis Cassidy argues that it is in the best interest of American citizens to support programs in whi... ... middle of paper ... ...cond Amendment that will support his essay, and not the whole thing. In Desuka's essay, she shoots down Cassidy's point that the Second Amendment gives the American People a "right to bear arms." Desuka writes that the Second Amendment does not guarantee every American Citizen "the right to bear arms". She writes "But the owners of handguns are not members of a well-regulated militia" ( 424 ). in conclusion, I found Desuka's essay more convincing than I did Cassidy's. What led me to this conclusion was: lack of statistics, dishonest evidence, and pretty much lack of any evidence to support Cassidy's. The Second Amendment specifically 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" (424 ), and not every American citizen is part of a "well-regulated militia".
United States is a country that has problems with gun control, and this issue has many debates between whether or not people should be allowed to carry a gun on them. This free county not only for speech and religion, but also allows people to have the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment of the United States was written by our Founding Fathers,“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” (Government). The main purpose of the Second Amendment when our Founding Fathers wrote this amendment was to help the American citizens to defend themselves from the government at that time, and other countries from invading their properties. However, the Second Amendment could be the opposite of what our Founding Fathers wanted it to be in the twenty-first century, because many criminals are taking advantage of the right to carry guns, which in example results with the purpose of showing off with their friends, revenge for their gang’s members, or try to be like their favorite hero in the movie they had watched. On July 20, 2012, a massive shooting occurred inside of a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The tragedy happened during a midnight screening of the film The Dark Knight Rises which killed twelve people and injuring seventy others. In response, this alarmed our government to rethink about the current gun control law in America. In A Well Regulated Militia by Saul Cornell, the author informed to his audience the different views of gun ownership in early America, which part was the most important part of the debate, how did slavery affect the debate over militias in the South, the Continental army officer’s views, and the arguments be...
The second amendment is the most debatable amendment. James Madison argued that there needs to be no concern about forming a federal government because state militias would protect the people from any threat. Madison suggested in 1789 that specific rights of citizens be spelled out in the Bill of Rights (Glantz 2360). Ratified on December 15,1791, the Bill of Rights included the Second Amendment to the Constitution that reads in this order, “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” (Madison 2360). Opponents of existing and proposed laws, including the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and the Second Amendment Foundation, routinely argue that the Second Amendment to the Constitution grants unrestricted right to individuals to “keep and bear arms” (Vernick 1773). In another group, they believe that only the military should have the right to keep and bear arms.
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...
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.
The Second Amendment and the right to personal gun use and ownership, is under attack in The United States today. Apparently the Second Amendment wasn’t clear enough when it 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" and politicians are calling for this amendment to be altered or even removed. Firearms have always been a big part of the American culture, and the ability to own a gun is detrimental to not only protecting one’s life and property, but also to keep the government in line. Author William Burroughs said, “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn 't do it. I sure as hell wouldn
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?
Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law once stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life …. many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals”. When we 're born, we are born with the right of life, and with the right of life came the right to self protection. There has been many laws that contradict the right of life just as the right of self protection. Justice Stevens once stated that “The Second Amendment’s structure was notable for its omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense”. Justice steven noted that the second right amendment covers us from self defence and hunting. Self defence is a really big topic because of the fact that most people die on the hands of others because they have nothing to defend themselves with. A report from New York Times once said that Wayne Lapierre, N.R.A executive vice president once stated that “The only only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun”. Reports were found that in Newtown connecticut in a public school, none of the school employees were armed and they had no defence when it came down to a school shooting. People were harmed and
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.
Larry Gerber (2011) also speaks about the history of the Second Amendment and analyzes the common laws, customs, and traditions of gun use in America. The author makes some comments on the famous phrase from the Second Amendment, which speaks about the right “to keep and bear arms,” and gives its modern interpretations (Gerber, 2011).
The debate over this amendment begins with the literal interpretation of the amendment itself. The 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" (Chemerinsky 26-28). The meaning of this quote in our modern society has yet to be understood. The first theory is that as citizens we are to stand ready, arms in hand waiting to defend our nation from foreign and domestic threats. While other citizens argue that this amendment refers solely to personal ownership and protection. I believe that until we can all share an equal understanding of the amendment, we will not reach a sensible agreement on the matter. Although both sides have reached an agreement on tighter regulations for the sale of firearms, very little progress has been made in reforming this issue.
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
Gun right advocates believe that the 2nd 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” guarantees the right to own guns and that gun control laws are a violation of their constitutional rights.(constitution) Sarah Palin, Alaska’s former governor, believes that gun control is taking away the rights from the citizens in which the 2nd Amendment has granted them. She is in favor of the constitution and expresses that gun control laws are unconstitutional; “I support our constitutional right to bear arms…You start putting more and more laws on guns and you take away a second amendment right.” (Romano 2) The government is constantly proposing legislation for more and more gun control. However, they cannot be so naive to think criminal...
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.
Professional champions of civil rights and civil liberties have been unwilling to defend the underlying principle of the right to arms. Even the conservative defense has been timid and often inept, tied less, one suspects, to abiding principle and more to the dynamics of contemporary Republican politics. Thus a right older than the Republic, one that the drafters of two constitutional amendments the Second and the Fourteenth intended to protect, and a right whose critical importance has been painfully revealed by twentieth-century history, is left undefended by the lawyers, writers, and scholars we routinely expect to defend other constitutional rights. Instead, the Second Amendment’s intellectual as well as political defense has been left in the unlikely hands of the National Rifle Association (NRA). And although the NRA deserves considerably better than the demonized reputation it has acquired, it should not be the sole or even principal voice in defense of a major constitutional provision.
The topic of gun control comes with a widely spilt crowd. Some people believe that gun control is essential, especially in today’s world. Some people think gun control will help with decreasing crime and making the nation a safer place for us to live. On the other hand, there are people who speak of anti-gun control. These people believe the right to bear arms would make our nation a safe place to live due to the fact that we would have protection. Do you think the Government has the right to make something illegal like the right to bear arm? In my opinion, the Government cannot simply because it will be an offence to our founding fathers, who gave us the national right to bear arm. Also, for making