“Guns don’t kill, people kill people.” This is a popular saying heard in a number of R rated movies where gun violence is the predominate theme. One excellent illustration can be seen in the movie Romeo Must Die when the actor DMX said that phase as he was getting ready to shoot someone. The phase was first coined by Wayne LaPierre who is a long-time executive director of the National Rifle Association. From his words and from his job title, a person can correctly guess that he is a pro-gun activist. He is defending the notion that a gun is not required to kill someone. This is absolutely true. A person can kill another person with just their bare hands. However, guns provide people with the means to do so in an easier and faster manner. Without …show more content…
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
According to www.archives.gov, the second amendment of the United States Constitution reads 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 is
"EDITORIAL: Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill..." EBSCO.com. Daily Star-Journal, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2012.
Should the 2nd amendment be revoked or changed? Many Americans would say “No,” stating that guns are dangerous and times have changed. Others might argue that having the right to bear arms keeps people safe and less threated by the outside world. In this debate, both sides of the 2nd amendments constitutional rights will be argued. The upcoming presidential election has been influencing voters to revoke our 2nd amendment rights which could change the democracy on which our country was founded.
For many years, America has witnessed mass shootings within it’s borders. In 2015 alone, there were 372 mass shootings (Oldham). The question most Americans are faced with is: do we need more gun control or is gun control the problem? With more gun control, it can be made mandatory that protective devices are used on firearms to prevent accidental harm. Gun control creates mandatory laws such as the requirement for an individual to pass a background check before he/she is permitted to purchase a firearm. Gun control has also been proven to prevent suicides due to the increased difficulty of obtaining a firearm. Those who believe that gun control is the problem claim that by removing one 's firearms, you are endangering them to threats that
Take a look at the history of our country and the role guns have played in it. According to the second amendment gun ownership is perfectly legal and guaranteed as a right. There were and are good reasons for this, luckily they are still practiced today. Back in the day guns used to be for hunting and, on the occasion self defense. But when the colonists of this country had enough of British rule, they picked up there own personal guns and went to war and the British saw first hand how powerful the rough band of average American gun owners were. Our forefathers knew that the general population if armed would be key in winning the war. And it was.
“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...
Written on December 15, 1791 was the second amendment of the constitution. It 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."(Cite)? United States citizens have used guns for various reasons that include protection, hunting, and sporting reasons. The topic on gun control is a very complex topic that is discussed daily. It is such a big issue that it has both the democrats and republicans firmly established in their positions. One of the main reasons this has been such an important topic in recent years is because of all the murders and massacres that have happened recently in the United States. As our newly nominated president, Donald
Are you willing to sit back and become a victim of violent crime or allow the government to tamper with your civil liberties? In recent years, anti-gun politicians have attempted to control guns in the name of crime prevention this is an assault on the Second Amendment rights of US 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.” Not only did our Founding Fathers focus their debate on the right of people to keep and bear arms, they devoted energy to encouraging future generations to defend theses freedoms. In defense of gun ownership, Alexander Hamilton said, “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” During our country’s development hundreds of law-abiding citizens were able to take up arms against lawless mobs to defend themselves, their family, their homes, and their businesses. They did the job law enforcement simply could not do. Lives were saved. Robberies were prevented. Homes and businesses were defended and left intact, all thanks to the Second Amendment to our constitutional, the right to keep and bear arms.
Anti-gun politicians are not wrong after all, as we all know guns are used to impair and injure potential victims and naturally people should not have access to these dangerous items. With logical reasoning, clearly any substance or thing that can hurt someone should be taken away or severely limited to only the highest extent. Private Citizens do not need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to guard them, although the Supreme Court tends to rule differently. When confronted by aggressive and violent criminals, you should "put up no defense, give them what they want, or run quickly" (Chairman Pete Shields, 125). Vulnerability of a person during the course of crime causes the safety factor in the situation to increase significantly. Guns are a good place to start, but honestly why stop there? I will further discuss objects that rhyme with gun that should be monitored and controlled as well.
The right to bear arms has been an important conversation in America for decades. As of recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting and the Aurora Colorado Theater shooting, the debate is more heated than ever. From large-scale massacres to single fatality shootings, gun violence is unwarranted and heartbreaking. However, the Second Amendment protects individual citizens’ right to own firearms: “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,” it states (Bill of Rights). Although this part of the Bill of Rights has not been changed in United States’ history, some citizens argue that, because the Constitution is a working document, this should be adapted to fit current needs and protect communities. Citizens who wish tip the scale in favor of the community’s protection argue that guns are dangerous, easy to access, popular weapons that allow disgruntled or mentally unstable citizens to “inflict mass causalities” and were originally only intended for use in a militia (Joe Messerli). On the other hand, those who wish to benefit civilians argue that taking away guns restrains individual liberty and that gun control would prove futile because criminals would find ways such as the black market to obtain guns, weapons can serve as self-defense prevent crimes, and reasonable restrictions would be more effective than an outright ban (Joe Messerli). Both arguments have valid, well developed ideas, and both sides tend to be passionate in debate.
Gun rights are the source of much controversy in today’s society. People have been skeptic after the multiple shootings that happened in the past few years. Recently, the NRA has been under constant threat by Congress. Background checks are not effective as planned. In order to keep the gun rights, changes need to be made in order to prevent gun control from being created.
Within the past decade, gun control has become a major topic of discussion in the United States because of all the devastating mass shootings. They have come in multiple different settings, such as churches, schools, governmental buildings, and even movie theatres. Due to these shootings, many people’s response is that we need to crack down on gun control in order to take the weapons out of the killer’s hands, but the fact of the matter is that in some of the cases where many people are killed in shootings, the guy who killed them obtained the gun they used illegally. So us citizens need to realize that no matter what laws are passed or what efforts we make, the “bad” guys are going to get guns regardless, so we might as well allow our own
Something to also consider is although we have many gun laws, not all are enforced. For instance, the Brady Bill gets easily nullified. This bill enforces a waiting period and a background check to buy a firearm. One example of the bill being nullified is, some states nearly nullify the federal law by removing individuals from the NCIS list, which is a list that prohibits certain people from buying weapons if they have completed their sentence. Another way the law is nullified, is buying a firearm through an unregulated forum. Through an unregulated forum a person, like Adam Lanza, is able to avoid background checks, waiting periods, and other reasons. (Record, and Gostin 568)
People who prefer to own guns say that guns are not killing people but the users. However, studies have showed that most of the killer said that they did not plan to kill the victims. In addition to that, more 70% of all killing come from family dispute or arguments between friends. (Federal Bureau of Investigation). If there were no guns, the issues would have been ended by shouting match, or maybe fights. Besides that, research has showed that if murderers attack people with guns, they have more chances to kill victims than with other weapons like knives.(Abner J Mikva).