Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Summary of the second amendment
Summary of the second amendment
The second amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Summary of the second amendment
The National Rifle Association and the Institute for Legislative Action
The National Rifle Association created the Institute for Legislative Action in 1975 as a means to lobby. Their mission statement entails preserving and protecting the Second Amendment, which guarantees the ability of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms for legal and acceptable purposes. The Institute is not directly associated with any specific ammunition or gun makers. It receives financial support from member dues and other contributions for the Institute's legislative activity. The National Rifle Association has headquarters in Fairfax, VA, Washington DC, and Sacramento, CA. The Institute is able to employ seven full-time lobbyists on Capitol Hill and over 70 other employees elsewhere. The National Rifle Association has more than 2.8 million members nationwide. This number has doubled since 1978. The main reason that the NRA is able to fight restrictions on gun control is due to the fact that their membership is so large. Whenever a bill or other form of legislation is proposed, the NRA supporters begin to write and contact their representatives.
In 1986, the Firearms Owner's Protection Act was enacted as law. This reformed a prior act that limited gun control. More recently, grassroots campaigns by the NRA and its members have brought about pro-gun legislation in many different states.
The institute also educates the public by distributing brochures and articles on ownership, self-defense, and safety of firearms. Additionally, the institute informs the public on the constitutionality of firearm ownership and other means of crime fighting measures.
The institute generally has an extremely high success rate when it supports candidates during elections. The NRA ranks political candidates not based on party affiliation, but rather voting records, public statements, and responses to a questionnaire. Examples of their success rate include the Senate and House of Representatives elections in 1998. Out of 310 campaigns they supported, 247 of them won. On a state level, also in 1998, out of 2750 campaigns there were approximately 83% victorious.
The NRA was the one of the biggest factors in preventing the bill passage for so long. The NRA has the veto threat of George H.W. Bush to hold over lawmakers. However, with the election of Bill Clinton, the NRA relied heavily on Senator Dole to stall and filibuster the bill. The NRA lost the battle in 1993 with a Senate vote of 63-36 (Vice). After President Clinton signed the bill, the NRA released a statement, “When Bill Clinton signed the Brady bill into law on November 30, [1993] a drop of blood dripped from the finger of the sovereign American citizen (Line Up and Shut Up. Face Forward. Stay in Line. Last Name First).” Unhappy with how things turned out the NRA turned to its distinctive hyperbole, telling members that “the Brady Law has become one more tool that government agents are using to deny Constitutional rights of law abiding citizens (LaPierre).” “The anti-gun media” and “new wave of brainwashing propaganda aimed at further destroying our Constitutional freedoms” were to blame for the Congressional defeats
At present there are numerous regulations and restrictions on firearms imposed by the government. However there are no national mandated requirements or all encompassing legislation. The laws in place vary from state to state and are in some cases are poorly enforced. Hard evidence as to the effectiveness of these present regulations is ambiguous. The question as to how the government and society deals with gun control is unique to the USA. In a complex issue such as gun control both sides of the equation have valid arguments to be h...
"Being Prepared in Suburbia" is an essay by Roger Verhulst published in 1992. The purpose of this essay is to show how guns can change a person's mind and emotions. Throughout the essay, Verhulst shares personal examples of his beliefs of gun ownership and personal examples of how his life changed once he bought a Crossman Power Master 760 BB Repeater pump gun. After purchasing the gun, he believed that the reason people like guns so much is because of a passion that gun owners feel. He stated, "This is the feeling that explains their passion, their religious fervor, their refusal to yield. It's rooted in the gut, not in the head" (Verhulst 342). He also realized that personal thoughts and morals about gun ownership change for a gun owner, and, in a sense, how the gun has authority over an individual's life. For example, "But a roving opossum that took up residence in our garage for a few cold nights in January undermined my good intentions" (Verhulst 341). Honestly, those are only excuses and not legitimate reasons. A strong person would not go against his or her beliefs and would know that using a gun should only be for a specific and valid purpose. Throughout the essay, he believes the weak gun legislation and the problems with gun usage are because of a passion that you feel in your gut; in reality, it is a lack of self-control.
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 has 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 were members, and Nixon, Eisenhower, and Kennedy were also members.
Guns are not the trouble, people are. The United States is #1 in world gun ownership, and yet is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people. The number of unintentional fatalities due to firearms declined by 58 percent between 1991 and 2011 Based on these facts, one can see the guns not the causes of gun violence. moreover, civilians who get permits take gun safety courses and have criminal background...
This is the premise that a nationally known organization, the NRA stands behind. The NRA being the National Rifle Association. They believe that our forefathers included the second amendment for a purpose.
The NRA, National Rifle Association, is a group with ever growing interest in our society today. With the rise of gun related violence and public shootings has both promoted and hurt the reputation of the NRA. Not only has the NRA been a large talking point, but gun reform overall too. With the rise of violence with the use of guns, Gun control has been a big dilemma congress is trying to overcome. The big discussion is how far the government should go with gun control without overstepping the second amendment. Many people want large gun reform, but the NRA is the protector of the second amendment to a sense, in turn stepping up their involvement. This has turned many people against the NRA and many people believe they are a anti-safety and a narrow minded both politically and racially. Before we can evaluate who the NRA is today and what the stand for, we must first know how their public image has progressed.
The American Constitution is sacred in that it hasn’t changed for hundreds of years, but it has come to our attention that some of the amendments are outdated. The second amendment states that everyone has a right to bear arms which sounds righteous and fair, but we live in a far different time than our fathers that wrote the Constitution did. Today, we have real problems with guns because it is so easy to obtain and so many misuse the power of such a dangerous weapon. It has always been American culture that owning a gun as a household self defense tool is considered a norm. The many cases of mass shootings made some people demand stricter regulations on gun or even ban guns completely. However, it would be illegal for the US government to ban guns, as laid down in the Constitution. It would seem “unamerican” that a man doesn’t have the right to buy a gun if he wanted to. It is also difficult to make any changes on gun laws, because of the National Rifle Association. It is an incredibly powerful organisation that represents gun owners ' rights. It is also known as one of the most influential lobbying groups in Washington. In order to lay stricter laws on guns, the government would have to go through them first. “[The NRA] have the ability to recruit and fund competitors for politicians who don’t listen to them. Lawmakers like their jobs and most try to keep them for life” (Culhane, 2015, p.2). The NRA have many wealthy members, and it is corrupted. Whenever congress tries to restrict any gun rights, the NRA will help any campaign financially to defeat them. Even though majority of the people in America want to change the gun laws, they are not as strong as the NRA. The NRA is strongly supportive of the American gun culture. Therefore, any suggestions that disadvantage gun right will be drowned to
Since the NRA’s was charter in 1871 for the promotion and encouragement of rifle shooting on a scientific basis, the organization has grown to over four million members. The organization describes itself as non-profit and non-partisan. However, it has more Republican members than Democrat members. Although it will endorse candidates from either party as long as the candidate supports its pro=gun position. Its stated position is for the protection of the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights and the promotion of firearm ownership rights as well as marksmanship, firearm safety, and the protection of hunting and self-defense.
Gun control is a very touchy subject in our world as crime rates rise and mass shootings occur. There are two sides to the table of gun control, either more control or less control. Both Democrats and Republicans have their stance on this issue and most representatives follow the party lines. It is typical that Democrats favor more gun control and Republicans favor less. The policy I support is the right to continue to carry a concealed weapon in every state; the only exclusion is it cannot be carried into restaurants, bars, or any place that sells alcohol. Currently some states allow you to carry a concealed weapon but if you cross state lines then you have the chance of being arrested. I would also entail that all states have the same/equal laws. What this policy will do is give the freedom to Americans to choose whether or not to carry a gun. This policy runs together with another gun control law, the Stand-Your-Ground law that grants individuals the ability to protect themselves from a deadly situation by using a gun. By allowing people to carry a concealed weapon you are giving them more protection for themselves or those around them. The third part of my policy is background checks. Without an in-depth background check gun stores could just hand a psychotic individual a gun to shoot up a mall. This is already in place and I believe it is a safe and a common sense thing to do. By allowing citizens of the United States to carry a concealed weapon, protect them in the area of defense and to ensure that the people carrying these weapons are mentally safe and not criminals, the world will then become a safer place.
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.
...takes time to educate and promote safe gun practices and competency with firearms. The NRA’s official motto is “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. I believe this is the sole valid argument when talking about gun control. If we look at almost all gun related incidents, most of the time the member involved has some motive or is mentally unstable. Shootings do not simply happen from the gun itself, but the person behind the gun. The NRA’s sole purpose is to get the negative misguided information that the government and media are spewing out, and turn it into truthful information used for the purpose of educating American’s on safe operation and proper use of firearms. Knowledge in this context is power. If the NRA can educate people into realizing guns are not the issue, viewpoints across the country would change, and the second amendment would stay intact.
Of Americans 3% own half the country's 265 million guns, that means each of those 3% own more than one gun. We have the individual right to own and use these arms. Gun control is a big debate in politics right now. I personally do not believe in gun control, i just feel like if a good guy had a gun then he would be able to stop things like shootings from happening. So do organizations like the NRA (National Rifle Association), the GOA (Gun Owners of America), and the SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) “The answer to crime is not gun control, its law enforcement and self-control” (Alan Keyes political activist) This violates our second amendment right of the U.S. constitution to keep and bear arms. So it's all in the best interest that we keep gun control from happening, so that we can keep our second amendment.
In "The Effectiveness of Gun Control Laws:." the authors perform a surgical operation on the various views and issues as presented by the industry concerning gun regulation. The publication outlines the laws that have been enacted by congress concerning the regulation of firearms and shows their pros and cons. The authors suggest that there needs to be a more concerted effort by the executive as well as the judiciary so be able to enforce laws concerning firearm issuing and licensing.
Due to the alarmingly large number of public massacres, gun reform has yet again become a highly debated issue in America. In the past, laws were enacted that were meant to restrict ammunition and military classes of weapons from resale in the United States. Due to strong lobbying efforts of the National Rifle