Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
introducing the 2nd amendment and the debate surrounding gun control
introducing the 2nd amendment and the debate surrounding gun control
gun control and the second amendment essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Second Amendment The 2nd amendment “The Right to Bear Arms” has not been brought up to date in over 200 hundred years and it is time that we make the necessary adjustments. Handguns and assault weapons are to blame for many mass killings in America. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Handguns and semi automatic weapons have been used in these massacres. The choice of rules such as exercising the right to further background checks and limit the availability of automatic weapons should be the first and foremost concern of both federal and state legislators. When this amendment was added to the constitution the majority of men ages 16 and up were part of the militia (military) and did …show more content…
Miller argued that the National Firearms Act violated their rights under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed stating that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear such a weapon. Since the conception of the 2nd Amendment federal judges evenly understood that the right protected by that sentence was limited in two ways: First, it was for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Our Founding Fathers did not intend for the average citizen to have the right to carry sawed-off shotguns or assault weapons when they added the 2nd amendment. This amendment was to help the government protect the citizens against threats. In 2008, the Supreme Court decided in the case of, District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for the reason of self-defense. In Chicago the case of McDonald v. Chicago the court decided the due process clause of the 14th Amendment limits the power of the city of Chicago to ban the possession of handguns by private citizens. In my opinion both decisions misinterpreted the amendment completely. …show more content…
The massacres and killings that seem to be more of the norm may not have happened. if this amendment was adjusted properly as society evolved. The Columbine massacre, Sandy Hook, and the horrific use of guns in Chicago can easily be prevented in the future. Modifying the 2nd amendment and making it clear to all citizens the true nature of the meaning “the right to bear arms” will help alleviate some of the senseless killings in our world. Guns should not be the first resource we use they should be the last; George Washington himself thought that the use of guns should be the last resort and resource
With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.
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 debate at hand is due to an apparent opposition to the rights granted by the second amendment to the United States Constitution. This 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.” Being as the article was ratified in 1791, the language used is far different than that which is commonly used today. For this reason, the amendment itself is a source of debate between those with liberal and conservative points of view. For those who take a libe...
Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." For this reason, the gun lobby does not fight for its perceived constitutional right to keep and bear arms before the Supreme Court, but in Congress. Interestingly, even interpreting an individual right in the 2nd Amendment presents the gun lobby with some thorny problems, like the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons.
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.
Many people believe the connotation is that the civilians of America have the right to obtain guns and use them to protect themselves and others. This right also gives them the fortification against the powerful government. Another understanding of the right to bear arms is that it is an outdated law that only applied in the time it was written. The Bill Of Rights, the first 10 Amendments, was written in1791. It was written right after being liberated from British rule. After being under an oppressive rule, the Framers and Founders wanted to prevent history from being repeated. They set in place the 2nd Amendment for citizens to arm themselves against the authoritative people in charge. In 2015, people see this amendment has something relevant in the time it was made. In 2008 D.C vs Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that rifles should be always be on trigger lock and that deadly weapons should not be carried in D.C borders without a license for it. This is one of America’s strictest gun laws (Cornel Law). In McDonald vs Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Heller decision does not apply to states. The Heller decision sided with the needs of society by trying to make the district safer (Oyez). The decision for Chicago, Illinois sided with the individual’s rights to bear arms and abide by their 14th amendment and 2nd Amendment
In a tragic event such as a mass shooting, a large population of Americans are quick to draw the conclusion that the right to own a gun is harmful to society; however, the second amendment is what allows the American people to protect themselves from such shooting instances. The privilege to own a concealed firearm is beneficial to the American population when well-regulated for reasons such as self-defense and expressing freedoms which U.S citizens are privileged enough to receive through the second amendment; given they pass a background check. The second amendment is what makes the privilege to own a gun legal. This thesis paper will highlight the benefits of the right to own a gun under 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.” The right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence would ultimately fail given the previous experiments of gun control in England and in numerous states.
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?
... government to have such high-tech weapons. Equally, they wanted to be trained on how to handle guns too; so in response the Bill of Rights was created. Cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald vs. Chicago (2010), showed readers that the Second Amendment allowed people to exercise rights given to them. In both cases, each defendant stood up for the right to possess a gun. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled that owning a gun was a fundamental right already in existences. In other cases such as Shepard vs. Madigan (2011) and Moore vs. Madigan (2012), gun rights helped to play an important role in self-defense as well as other incidents. The Second Amendment allowed each individual to carry a concealed handgun in public. All in all, guns have help deter crimes. They have helped in stopping criminals and have protected the rights of gun owners.
...o militias, and dismissed his lawsuit. Heller perused his lawsuit; the matter was appealed and sent to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals reversed the lowers court decision based on reasons the Second Amendment clearly mentions an individual may bear arms while serving in the militia, and the same individual has a right protect himself and his family as sacrosanct. The court concludes that the city’s ban on handguns and its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional violated that right. In other words, an individual need not be in a militia to own a firearm, it is an individual’s right to own a firearm in self -defense. Heller concluded his defense by saying, “self-defense is a basic right recognized by ancient legal system to present, and it is the central component of the Second Amendment”
The second amendment says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The second amendment was made for two things. It is there for first, to guarantee the individuals right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation. The second reason is related to the militia. The right to carry a handgun for self-protection is a privilege of citizenship. The confusion is the right of the state or the individual. The regulation of handguns could be looked at as unconstitutional. The amendment is for the people and not the state.
The gun lobby might threated with suing in order to prevent the state governments from pursuing future bans on firearms and handguns due to high criminality. “Policymakers should rest assured, however, that nothing in the McDonald decision prevents them from adopting many types of reasonable laws to reduce gun violence.”(2010.Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence) Also in March 2010, “a federal district court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to many of those laws, including a ban on assault weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines, a one-handgun-a-month law, and a law requiring the reporting of lost or stolen firearms, demonstrating that many strong gun laws remain consistent with the Second Amendment.”(2010. Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence) . The threat of litigation upholding the Heller Right is present, but laws dealing with gun control in every other state are so much different than those of Chicago, giving ample room to bear and keep
It is believed that The Founding Fathers thought that the society benefited from guns being in the hands of the people. This way all citizens were able to defend themselves at all times.
This also states that gun violence would be reduced and restrictions have already existed. It also states that the majority of Americans, including gun owners, support new gun restrictions. However, some people affirm that the Second Amendment protects the individual(s) right to own a gun. They state guns are needed for self-defense from the threats ranging from local criminals to foreign invaders (gun-control.procon.org, 2016). Gun ownership deters crime rather than cause more crime.