2ND Amendment Argumentative Essay

“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.” - Second Amendment. Throughout history, this sentence of twenty seven words has caused an intense debate. The polemic is that some people claim that a gun control policy is unconstitutional, while others disagree and even say it is necessary in order to reduce crime. Now, what does gun control mean? If it means to analyze who is responsible enough to own a gun by a “Universal Background Check”; that sounds right to everyone. But in the article “What Are Obama’s Gun Control Proposals? An Easy Guide” published in the National Journal by Matt Vasilogambros. The author states that the “gun-control

Guns, used for a wide variety of things, such as hunting, sports, and defense. Though destructive, guns have their uses. But what allows citizens to own guns in the U.S.? The answer to that question is the 2nd amendment. The amendment states that citizens can bear guns, and that a free state should have a good militia. At the end of the amendment, the amendment states that it should not be infringed. Back in 2012 Obama was claimed to try to take away guns. Should guns be taken away from U.S. citizens, or even the whole second amendment? Well, the second amendment should not be taken away, because guns provide defense against attackers, state militias provide more safety, and the amendment itself says it should not

The first amendment grants religious freedom to all citizens of the United States but when does that religions power and actions go too far, and when are we supposed to draw the line? The First Amendment grants religious freedom to the Citizens of the United States allowing them to believe what they want and freely practice their religion. This goes as far to say what happens when their power goes too far. Whether it be deemed illegal or something that the states don't feel should be going on. Should we turn our cheeks and let it go on. I feel that there should be a point in which we do put limitations on people's actions in their religions. The Founding Fathers knew that freedom of religion was very important and one of the reasons they came to America. Therefore, we have the free exercise clause and the establishment clause. These all give citizens the right to hold their beliefs and practice their religions freely but, when those actions start to go against the law and harm other people then there is a point where we need to put limitations on them.

We have had several of the worst mass shootings in our nation's history in quick succession over the past few years. Certain legal restrictions and acts from our government could have prevented numerous deaths. Common sense background checks and limitations to cartridge size and assault weapons would surely have saved many lives at the Las Vegas Massacre, but certain men and women claim that these restrictions violate their second amendment right. They claim that guns aren't the problem. That guns don't kill people, people kill people. So limiting access to devastating guns is just avoiding the problem. The Second Amendment right presumably violated by common sense gun control is “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” (Second Amendment). The Second Amendment states that for the need of a well regulated militia to protect the security of the free state and the right for the people to keep and bear arms. Militias have been inactive for decades so in a sense the intent of the amendment is no longer relevant. Based on the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution is not still a valuable and viable document in modern America because it stands in the way of thorough background checks, training courses, and its vague wording and absolute intent make it inefficient to maintain peace and order and should be amended “To the People of the United

The right to bear arms is a birth given right to all Americans by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment has become controversial recently due to the technological advancement of firearms. Modern firearms are capable of both high rates of fire and greater capacities of ammunition, unlike the single shot muskets that were available at the time of the Second Amendment’s conception. American liberals view these improvements in firearms as dangerous and unnecessary. However, no matter how dangerous firearms may be, the Second Amendment is a necessity for one factor alone: protection from one’s own government and it must be upheld. The Second Amendment provides a physical tool for Americans to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, it allows Americans to form militias against a tyrannical government, and it allows Americans to maintain comparable firearms of the U.S. government in order to prevent the potential loss of American freedoms in the future.

America needs to institute, and initiate gun control laws throughout the entire nation. But not everybody who inhabits the United States believes in regulating arms. Those who are against establishing gun laws argue that gun control directly infringes upon their “right to bear arms” granted to them by the 2nd Amendment. Anti gun control supporters, such as the National Rifle Association, often claim that the act of regulating guns is a sufficient reason why such an Amendment was introduced in the constitution; to protect themselves from any and all forms of violation of civil liberties and freedom. Supporters of anti gun laws are unwilling to welcome any interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that do not match up “word for word,” as was written in the Bill of Rights.

Most people would link violence and crime problems with gun control in America. The debate that Americans face today is the freedom the Second Amendment gives citizens and whether or not the country should repeal it. While some people feel that repealing it should solve the problem, others believe that it is one of the most important basic freedoms we have as Americans. Federal gun control laws are unconstitutional, and I believe the Second Amendment is both an individual and state right.

“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.” In our political climate today, there is an ongoing debate on the meaning of the second amendment. In particular, much controversy centers upon whether we should make gun control laws more strict like the laws in DC, or if we should make laws to encourage and embrace American citizens to own firearms and carry them in public, similar to laws in Vermont. In fact, some citizens wonder why we even have the second amendment in the first place.

The banning of firearms in America is an illegal act, and degrades the values this country was founded on. They not only play a vital role in many people's lives, but are useful tools, fun to use, and can protect people from harm. Our founding fathers wanted us to have them to protect ourselves from the government, and would be disgusted at our government's current abuse, and overall disregard of the constitution of the United States. A lot of people argue that guns kill people; this is untrue. Guns in the hands of a negligent person have potential to kill people, just as anything else.

The 2nd amendment is one of the most debated topics in the United States. It’s a very important topic because it concerns every citizen in the country. Many people feel that the 2nd amendment should be repelled to avoid unfortunate incidents such as a weapon landing on the hands of an irresponsible person simply by not securing the firearm appropriately, an increase of street shootings, and accidental trigger pulls. On the other hand, others believe that the right to bear arms is essential to our country because it protects us from devastating events, some of which

Didn't that happen after the American government took the Lokota's guns from them after promising them no harm would come to them? Of course in more modern times there was Waco, where our government bombed a religious community and ultimately killed 82 of its members, including women and children ..... Our government is not to be trusted and that is the very reason our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment so "We the People" can keep a check and balance on "We the People's" government

Does the second amendment have a place in the year 2016? I personally don’t believe so. Before I go into great length, or become long winded, I will say that I am not for the second amendment. And with my upbringing, it would surprise a lot of people. I’m from the south. However, I am liberal, I come from a long line of conservative republicans and war veterans. Not to mention, my mother, by the age of 15, could take apart and put back together a machine gun. Guns as a hobby, I can respect, but it isn’t my cup of tea. Guns are dangerous, regardless if I am, or if the person holding one is. We owe it to ourselves, and to our fellow Americans to want to make the country we call home safer with every generation.

As today's society struggles with the continuous problems surrounding gun violence, many Americans are questioning whether or not our Second Amendment is applicable to our society as of today. Undeniably, our circumstances as a nation in the United states differs dramatically from when The Constitution adopted the Second Amendment in 1791. This document 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." At this time our founding fathers had no idea of the challenges we would currently face as a nation and recently the United States recorded its deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S history. Proving that the Second Amendment has not been applicable with today's society, it being outdated, the frequent tragedies through gun violence, and the lack of regulations currently being displayed.

Through the years there has been an ongoing discussion on the Second Amendment and how it should be clarified. The issues that are being discussed is whether the government have has the right to manage guns. There are possibly two sides to this Second Amendment debate, where one is the collective side, which that the right was given only for collective ambitions. The collective side is in more favor since it has stricter gun control laws, that being said the government feels that having stricter laws on guns would lower the number of crimes that are committed with guns which would help save thousands of lives. Meanwhile gun control laws may subtract the criminals’ access to purchase or obtain firearms, in addition, the same law would limit

I do and always will believe in the second amendment. People have the right to own and carry guns with them wherever they go. People have the right to own guns for hunting purposes and putting food on the table to feed their family, and they also have the right to carry a gun with them for self defence and keep in the house to protect their family. It is and always will be my belief that people have the right do whatever it is that they want to do when it comes to