Analysis Of The Second Amendment: The Right To Bear Arms

Gun control in America is one of the most fiercely debated topics in today’s political sphere. Nearly everyone has an opinion and there is a mind-boggling amount of information typically discussed regarding the matter. Media hot takes and campaign talking points aside, far too many lives have been lost to gun violence. A total of 12,902 in 2016, to be exact. The fact that more lives have been lost to gun violence in the United States this year than the 5,000 lost in the almost 10-year war effort overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan is appalling. Is sensible and reasonable gun control progress attainable in our near future? That remains to be seen, however it is my intention to respectfully dissect an argument presented by none other than an essay

The second amendment should not be taken away because it also provides each state with an option for a militia. Over the past 5 years, that gap has rapidly decreased in all sectors. GPS and mapping tech, software, optics, etc has gotten smaller faster and cheaper at a rapid pace in the civilian sector, and in some instances -more user friendly by far.” Militia’s are a sort of small army, with very advanced weaponry that show that militia, and the military are very advanced. “Today, 23 states and territories have organized militias, most commonly known as State Defense Forces (SDFs).” (Carafano “The 21st-Century Militia: State Defense Forces and Homeland Security) The government being trusting enough to let multiple states have small armies shows a lot. It shows how the government and each state is organized. Militias also allow states to be separate from the government, but still be with the government. If each state has a small militia, they won’t need help from the government, while the government still controls laws for how militias work. Some may say we don’t need a small military, we have the army, or the police! But the army is more national, plus would take a longer time for help. The police help, but sometimes more power is needed, other than hand pistols. Without the second amendment, the whole country

     Gun control is a very controversial issue among society at present. Many feel guns are the cause of a great amount of crime. This has been an especially popular topic recently in lieu of the shooting at Columbine and other high schools across the country. Are these crimes reason to take away our freedom to bear arms? I do not believe so. The average person uses guns mainly as a means of protection. If limitations are placed on guns, they will only stop the average American from obtaining a gun. The real criminals out there will still be able to obtain guns through the black market. Every American should have the right to protect them self.

In December 1791, the Second Amendment was made: The Second Amendment offers “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep arms, and shall not be infringed.” This basically means United States gives the right to its residents to keep arms, and it guaranteed individuals the right to possess arms for their own personal defense. In the past few decades there been thousands of pages that are written seeking to uncover the meaning of the “the people,” and “bear arms,” have been strongly debated.

Across the United States of America a debate rages on daily, that debate is whether or not to allow the public to obtain and operate firearms. The right to bear arms has been fused together with American culture for hundreds of years. Many advocates for gun control are against citizens of the United States being able to possess and operate firearms, even though it is a necessary evil and is a right of every man and woman across the country. Gun control in the United States is a dangerous topic but one that needs to be addressed. American citizens have the right to bear arms, and the evidence is there to prove that it can be done effectively and safely.

Mass shootings are increasing in the United States, and gun control advocates are seizing the opportunity to push anti-gun legislation to deter gun violence in America. Guns and the Second Amendment have come to the forefront of political rhetoric, leading to conflicting views between lawmakers on the future of gun legislation. Republican lawmakers are encouraging law abiding citizens to acquire firearms and to defend themselves against acts of violence by criminals. On the contrary, Democratic lawmakers believe the only way to slow gun violence in the United States is to remove guns from society. While certain politicians believe strict gun laws would protect the American people, the proposed policies would make our nation more vulnerable

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.” (Constitution, Amendment 2). There is much debate as to whether the Amendment refers to individuals having the right to bear arms or that we are entitled to have an army (militia) that is ready at moments notice to fight for our country. Both interpretations are technically correct as they are present in the Amendment. Every state had a National Guard that is readily available in case of disaster or war. This goes without mentioning our military that are also ready and waiting. Everyone shares in the protection

Gun control has been a long debate to determine if it’s better to have stricter access to firearms. America is one of the few countries that has gun rights embedded in their constitution. But what makes the US exceptional is that it has the right to keep and bear arms, other countries do not provide the right to have access to them, but rather, the government is allowed to regulate its use. The right to bear arms has also been the cause of growing violence and crime, at least according to anti-gun lobbyists. Citizens should be aware the dangers and harm that guns present to society. Controlling the sale of firearms can greatly decrease the number of violent crimes.

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

In the Constitution, the second amendment gives the American people to have the right to possess and bear arms. This amendment has been the most controversial issue since guns have been around. Issues such as gun control and gun ownership have remained a matter of debate and have been floating around in Congress. It has been rumored that Congress is forced to draft certain legislation in order to come up with a law against unlawful use of arms, and only owning them for safety purposes. When it comes to congress, Republicans and Democrats have debated their views on gun-control in the United States to best fit the overall well-being of the citizens. These different points of views have caused many discussions on how this controversial topic should be handled and whether or not it conflicts with the second amendment. Throughout this topic, Republicans and hardcore NRA supporters favor with less strict rules of gun-control while Democrats want stricter rules such as a background check for every citizen that poses a threat to either the United States of America or the average citizen. The debate on guns in America has essentially become one more distracting, off-point topic in culture wars.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution gave United States citizens the right to bear arms. Although, the Second Amendment stated: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. However, the framers could not foresee the type of violence we have in our cities today. Innocent citizens have and are being brutally killed due to this amendment. Stricter gun control laws must be enacted to receive these types of weapons.

In the United States the right to own a gun is enshrined by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The text of the Second Amendment 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” (Adams, 2004). The founding fathers borrowed this idea from Niccolo Machiavelli, the Italian thinker. He wrote about the weapons necessary for freedom to defend themselves, to hunt, and to protect the state against foreign invasion. For two hundred years, this tradition has become an integral part of American culture that spawned many cultural phenomena that have become the hallmark of the United States. For example, duels in the desert areas of the

Does the Second Amendment protect the right to own and operate heavy and destructive military-grade firearm to civilians while openly carrying them around in the public, but that doesn't answer the question nor does it give a descriptive meaning to what it means. It's an ungrammatical sentence, it refers to militias that don't even exist anymore and has been the subject of an intense controversy. The Second Amendment has two parts, the first part talking about state militias saying that militias are a necessary part of national defense and the second part deals with the right to “bear arms”(Gun Control), the question of how the two relate is something that is still debated.

The right to keep and bear arms was considered a fundamental, individual right in the original 13 colonies from the pre-Revolutionary period through the ratification of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution in 1791. The 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. The right to keep and bear arms has been a topic of extreme controversy in this century and can be argued equally from both sides. The first side says that it is our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On the flip side, it is too dangerous and would increase the number of violent crimes. No matter which side is

According to The Second Amendment of the Constitution, the citizens of the United States have the right to own and bear arms, in order to form a well-regulated militia for the security of the states. This right has been discussed for decades as an important issue for the American society, and it has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century until nowadays. This right germinated with the threat to freedom that the standing army of professional soldiers brought to the Americans. Some argued that the right to bear arms is mainly concerned with self-defense while others argued that this right was implemented to avoid militia disarmament and protect the Free State. This right was