Argumentative Essay: Gun Control Laws In The United States

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution protects individual gun ownership. The Second Amendment of the US 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." Gun ownership is an American tradition older than the country itself and is protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would infringe upon the right to bear arms. Justice Antonin Scalia, LLB, in the June 26, 2008 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller US Supreme Court majority opinion syllabus stated, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." The McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) ruling also stated that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights."

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

Gun control in the United States has been a hot debate for years. In the year 2015 there were 372 mass shootings in the United States ( (Rienzi, 2016), sparking even more debate. 22% of Americans own firearms (Rienzi, 2016) and firmly believe in the second amendment of the constitution. Surely, an agreement on gun law reform can be met while also protecting the second amendment. Right?

Republicans are eager to shut down this Colorado gun bill. Here’s why their dream could backfire big time.

After Grisez threatened that stranger, he immediately left. Soon after, her neighbors went to a local gun shop and bought each family a pistol. They promise when one family is not at home, others will help watch over their house. If anyone faces an emergency, others will give hands. Grisez 's two sons, Jack and Michael, have now developed a new hobby to watch over their neighbors' houses (Wright).

The cliché expression “Gun’s kill people” frequently used in today’s society has many rational flaws. If one truly believes a gun is the cause of the victim’s death, they have serious issues. The people behind the gun who are loading, aiming, and pulling the trigger are responsible for the lives ended. Guns are used as weapons, just like knives, bombs, rope, gas, and other tools are used. The question is should there be national gun control in America? Why should the government have the authority to take away Americans guaranteed second amendment right? Why should the government have the power to deny a person’s right of self-defense? There should not be national gun control laws in America because they violate the second amendment right, and because gun control takes away the individual safety of Americans.

Newtown, Connecticut. The kindergarteners filed into their desks just after coming inside on a cool, crisp, fall morning. Adam Lanza got into his car, fresh after killing his own mother. Over 1,000 rounds of ammo filled his pockets. The carnage was about to begin. He pulled into Sandy Hook Elementary School and got out of his car. Walking through the front doors with ease, he entered a classroom. Suddenly, gunfire is heard. Blood filled the floors of the classroom. Screaming, and the aroma of gunpowder, filled the air.

On October 1, 2017 58 people died and 422 were people seriously injured. Almost 500 people were injured that night on the Vegas strip, the gun the perpetrator was using was a legal gun, but he added slide fire to his gun which made it an automatic weapon, which is illegal.

(1) In America, gun control has already taken place, but they have not yet taken a stand on ammunition amounts. America has the most mass shooting rates in the past 50 years compared to any other country. People blame it on “mentally unstable” people because they think that they are a problem in America when really they aren't focusing on the real problem: ammunition. Ammunition is used in every shooting no matter if it was an automatic gun or semi-automatic pistol. (1) (2) America does not have ammunition regulations and some believe if the U.S. had ammunition laws the people with guns would have a harder time shooting mass amounts of people with a restricted amount of bullets. In the past year, the U.S. has had multiple mass shootings, but they have not been put on the news or put out to the

Despite the opposition, gun control laws are in fact, very necessary. Having such laws would reduce death rates. Also, common sense background checks and bans on certain types of guns could save lives.

Do you want to always feel safe in your home, at school, or at work? Well, increasing gun control laws will rip that sense of security away from you. Gun control does not work; it endangers the citizens of the United States because the crime rates will rise like they have in Chicago. Politicians do not know how to fix gun violence, gun control has failed miserably and it is unconstitutional.

For many years the controversial topic of gun control has sparked countless passionate debates. The arguments posed in these debates vary widely concerning the possible solutions to solving the problem of violent crime due to the possession of firearms. This paper introduces three different views concerning gun control. The first illustrates the freedom to own firearms. The second view advocates the complete restriction of firearms owned by citizens, and the last one presents a modified freedom of possessing firearms. Each faction seeks to have its position supported by national legislation.

Gun control in the United States is a very controversial topic in today’s political society, leaving the nation divided into two sides with two strongly opinionated beliefs. This all started with the increase in the amount of mass shootings and an overall increase in gun violence. The two sides consist of the liberal point of view and the conservative point of view. The liberals believe that the availability of firearms to the people in the country is a major issue, and that the U.S. government is at fault for the mass shootings due to the lenient regulations on guns. In retaliation, the conservatives argue that having a gun is a God given right, that the Second Amendment of The Constitution. Although the availability of guns is seen to be

People may hear about this and say why doesn’t the United States do that? Well just because a country does something like that doesn’t make it help. Looking at the United Kingdom and Ireland who tried placing gun bans in the country to make things better, but it didn’t. In the United Kingdom, from 1990 until 1996 the homicide rate fluctuated between 10.9 and 13 homicides per million. But once the ban was enacted, homicide numbers rapidly went up to the point there was 18.0 homicides per million people. The British government then flooded the country with 20,000 more cops (14). Another case with something like that happening happened in Ireland. Ireland banned firearms in 1972. The homicide rate was between 0.1 and 0.6 per 100,000 people. Right

The Second 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” (Stolzenberg and D'alessio). These words were written over two hundred years ago, however the exact meaning of them are still not entirely clear. The Amendment’s true meaning has been rather obscure for centuries, but it wasn’t until recent years that the issue has become the center of legal and academic debates (Stolzenberg and D'alessio). Though there has been regulations on guns for quite some time, firearm regulation did not become a “prominent political issue” until the 1980’s (Stolzenberg and D'alessio). “Once gun control entered the nation's political conscience, there was a surge in academic study of the Second Amendment's language and the historical sources surrounding its adoption” (Stolzenberg and D'alessio). Various books and articles were written and published reviewing these issues and “even noted constitutional theorists such as Laurence Tribe” began to change their ideas and understanding of the amendment (Stolzenberg and D'alessio).