A shooting massacre happened in San Bernardino California in last December shocked
the world. After the massacre, President Obama made a very quick statement, and he
emphasized that the U. S. should control the guns more strictly and make each effort
to decrease the crimes related to the firearms. Although the gun enthusiasts refute this
proposal, and assert that the individuals should carry guns in terms of defense, I believe that
the best way to protect the citizens from murdered by weapon is to make the weapons
unavailable to the individuals.
First of all, as the gun advocates point out, the Amendment 2nd give the citizens the
rights to own arms. In fact, even though the constitution makes it clear that owning weapons
doesn’t violate the law, the Amendment is not intended to encourage people to carry a pistol
without any restriction. The reason is simple and understandable, with the development of the
military technology, we should notice that carrying a gun is more dangerous in the modern
society than in the past because the advanced and mass destruction firearms are designed and
manufactured these days. Thus, it is convenient and effective to kill more innocent people
than the time when the constitution was drafted. If the government does not take the strong
and effective methods to restrict the procession of the weapons of the mass destruction, the
shooting massacre would be increased instead of being decreased in the future.
We the citizens of any country are affected by weapons and their accessibility, we can one day be
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.
In today's society there is the question ‘Should there be more gun laws?’. The advancements in military weaponry is nothing short of astounding. With these advancements though, come the ramifications of their inventions. More and more, the nation is seeing these weapons in actions. People are fearful and demand more laws, but that is not the answer to this dilemma. More gun laws would not resolve this problem for numerous reasons; more gun laws would lead to more violence, the United States alwardy have an excessive amount on gun laws, and the nation looks at the object not the person. The United States have to address these issues before a change will happen.
To better comprehend its advantages an individual should understand that the concept of stricter gun control refers to policies and laws that are designed to help regulate the manufacture, sale, possession, transfer, modification or use of firearms (Braga and David 14). Through the institution of these laws governments/Law enforcement agencies will be able to control and reduce incidences of gun related violence within the U.S
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 two primary positions presented on this issue are generally referred to as the “individual rights” and “states’ rights” positions (“Second”). The “individual rights” position posits that the amendment was written to secure private citizens’ personal right to own firearms as they see fit. This conclusion is generally concluded by looking at the rest of the Bill of Rights as well as many personal writings of the framers of the Constitution.
Last but not least, proponents of this idea discuss stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make the community safe if it is not the only way. Other ways take long time to get the results. For instance some people believe on education. They discuss that instead of making stricter laws, government can educate people and teach them how and when they use their weapons or where keep them at home to avoid home accident. However, as Kennedy (2011, p.211-212) has mentioned Education is very important and necessary but it takes time to see the results. Educating people never happen in short time; it takes decades. Therefore our community should live with all gun related crimes and murders for decades
The second amendment of the constitution 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.” (Cornell Law) For over fifty years, the amendment has been interpreted to the courts that people individually do not have the right to own gun, but rather that this right is to be regulated by legislatives on the federal,
"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." These are the words of the second amendment in the United States Constitution. The amendments guarantee america citizens the right to bear arms. This right grants men have the right to bear arms their for protection or for the militia they were served in. This amendment today should grant all civilians to own guns.
The reason for the numerous amounts of reformed gun laws in the past century are due to the
There is no doubt that around 260 million guns exist, and that they increase the country's death rate. However, there is no way to eliminate
When the writers of the constitution wrote the historic document, they wanted to give us equal rights to satisfy all americans. The second amendment of the constitution gives us the right to hold a firearm. It 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”, (“The Bill of Rights:A Transcription”). An exceedingly powerful phrase is present in the quote; shall not be
arms is not always a good idea, especially during times of peace without clear and present dangers. In
Such is the extraordinary power a firearm empowers every man with, such is the story and history of America down to the present day.
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.” The constitution is clearly saying all citizens have the right to be able to own and carry a weapon or firearm. On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves (Cornell 1). This is showing how our founding fathers supported the right to bear arms.