2nd Amendment Rhetorical Analysis

The author of “The History of the Second Amendment,” David E. Vandercoy, is originally from Corry, Pennsylvania. He graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 1971 with a B.A., then graduated from Dickinson School of Law with a J.D. degree in 1974 and New York University with a LL.M. in 1980. Today, he is a director of Clinical and Skills Training Programs and Professor of Law at Valpariso University of Law. His article is originally for educational use as a review for Valpariso University.

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.

Gun control is one of the most debated about topic today in America; between news outlet, the public, and politicians. As some politicians look to resolve the gun control issues, with banning them, imposing more restriction to sellers, buyers and owner; some people and politicians consider the second amendment to be relic and should be removed from the constitution. History has shown us time and time again even through all the violence and chaos in the world and America, that there is a reason for the creation of the second amendment. From history of America independence in 1776 to the ratification of the bill of right in 1791 the 2nd amendment still remains relevant form it creation, to modern times, and the protection of America’s future; for the freedom of its inhabitants and citizens. The once influential 20th century thinker George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Looking back into ancient history, the history of second amendment, recent and current history we can find clues that will support the relevance of the 2nd amendment. We will also define the second amendment and try to find solutions to our current problems from what our forefathers had say.

“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.

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which 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”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

The debate over stricter gun laws has been ongoing in the United States for quite some time now. Individuals who oppose stricter gun control laws argue that the second amendment to the constitution of the United States constitute part of the bill of rights that protect the right of American citizens to bear arms, and any attempt to set up laws for gun control will be a direct violation of this (Hofstadter 10). They argue that the primary purpose of the amendment was to ensure that American Citizens had the capability to protect themselves against criminal activities and defend the country against external aggression. From a personal perspective, the recent surge in instances of gun violence in the United States of America indicates that stricter gun control laws are necessary for the safety of the American citizenry. Thus, this paper is going to focus on highlighting the benefits of more stringent gun control laws and why members of the public should support it.

In America, the average amount of people shot per year is 100,000; over ten thousand defenseless people are murdered. The Second Amendment’s proclamation 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” has been an extensive topic of debate. Moreover, the amendment has been one of many debates over the several years throughout America. The discussion of gun control is often debated as to whether or not it is morally right to legally bypass the Second Amendment to avoid unlawful uses of arms. The Second Amendment allows citizens to carry firearms specifically for protection, gun control hinders that right and places civilians’ lives in danger. In short, the U.S. government’s intrusive restrictions on gun laws prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves with firearms.

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

A paltry twenty-seven words, present in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, have been a major focal point of the seemingly endless debate over whether, and for what purposes, US citizens have a right to own firearms. Positions vary wildly from those that hold these words to mean citizens have the right to violent revolt to those that believe they only allow the United States Armed Forces to exist, as well as a multitude of positions in between.

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.

The Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution is fiercely debated and interpreted differently among American citizens and argued with between the Legislative and Judicial branches of our government. “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,” (Brooks). Because of the Second Amendment, citizens have the right to possess firearms and use them for protection. When researching the origin of the Second Amendment, its modern applications, and its relevance in today’s society, one can determine the Second Amendment’s current implications on today’s society.

Second Amendment rights must be the most controversial section of the Constitution, it most definitely has to be the most challenged. Lawsuits have been brought up against the Second Amendment for many years, challenging whether or not it should still be a part of the Constitution, and the meaning behind the verbiage used. The anti-gun crowd has attempted multiple times to prove the Second Amendment should apply only to a militia and that the average citizen has no right to own a firearm. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the largest lobbyist group for pro-gun rights and one of the most powerful interest groups in politics today. They have successfully supported the defense of the peoples’ right to own firearms for many years. After many years of failing to accomplish their agenda, the anti-gun crowd has a new tactic: instead of facing the multimillion members of the NRA (Statistic Brain Research Institute, 2014) they are now going after the gun manufacturers and dealers. They cannot stop the sale of guns therefore they want to eliminate the source. This paper will identify the historical foundation of the Second Amendment, describe the National Rifle Association’s involvement, and site the legal precedence and challenges.

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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." This amendment has been understood amongst the American people, as simply “the right to bear arms”. The creation of the United States constitution was left in the hands of young men whom had served in the Continental Army prior to the draft of the historical document. Having witnessed the violence of the Revolution, these Federalists had the fear of suffering from a weak centralized government. “Anti-federalists”, members that opposed the Constitution, feared that this new government could build one centralized professional army, disarming the 13 state militias.

“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 is the second amendment, the right to bear arms. Throughout history, it has been, seen as one of the most controversial and significant pieces of text in the United States Constitution with many debating over its meaning, context, and role in modern society. Since its ratification, Americans have been arguing over the amendment's meaning and interpretation. One side interprets the amendment to mean it provides for collective rights, while the opposing view is that it provides individual rights. Although the meaning of the second amendment continues to be a hot-button issue for both sides of the aisle one thing is certain, the role that it plays in the American way of life and the lives that it has affected remains a critical aspect of

For quite some time now, there has been big controversy about whether we should have the right to bear arms and how we should be able to obtain weapons / how we should be with them (gun control). The 2nd Amendment ties into gun control and stirs up a lot of debate. Some people believe it’s a danger to society, and some people believe that taking away guns would be taking away our freedom in a way. If we had stricter gun laws, people say there would be less tragedies and mass-shootings. But on the other hand, it’s said that we need guns to defend ourselves maybe in times like this. Although it’s in the Constitution some people just don’t agree and say that the 2nd amendment can be interpreted different ways. There is serious disagreement about whether guns protect liberty or threaten it (Waters, Timothy William, 2017).