Argumentative Essay On Gun Control

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.

The second amendment of The Constitution of the Unites States rules 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.” In recent years this has become a highlighted and popular discussion topic throughout people and media. Typical with American media the subject of gun control is visited with broad stroked of red and the use of fear tactics while completely ignoring the complicated and underling positives and negatives of public access to firearms and the benefits and risks associated with this freedom. Most people do not carry a weapon at all and may question others who do because of the moderately low risk of being a victim of a crime. Those how carry however like to think “Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.”

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."

Firearms have been in American history since the birth of America, however, as time progresses, the purpose of a gun have changed along with the opinions of the people. With many crimes and murders committed with a firearm, some feel the need to implement stricter gun control laws. However, others feel that this is a violation of the second amendment’s “right to bear arms.” With major organizations forming such as the NRA to protect the rights of the second amendment, the topic of having stricter gun control laws have become a very controversial issue in the United States in recent years.

In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of

When tragic, major events happen in the United States, you can always expect an argument or something to unfold about how to prevent something similar from happening again. On October 1st, a man named Stephan Paddock, shot and killed 59 people including himself, while injuring an additional 546. This shooting is now considered the deadliest attack in United States history, so of course you can expect an ongoing political conversation on how to prevent attacks like this. During the attack, Paddock used what is called a “bump stock,” on many of his guns, making his guns’ rapid fire, like an automatic gun, which is what made it so easy for him to open fire and attack so many. After the tragic event, a gun control organization looked into the

In recent years, gun control has been one of the most debated topics in the United States. No matter who you ask, everyone always has an opinion on firearm ownership. After every publicized mass shooting, two groups of people form: group #1 wants to ban guns from private ownership in some shape or form, and group #2 fights against them fiercely to protect the constitutional right to bear arms. More specifically, the 2nd amendment to the U.S 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.” (US Const. amend. II).

In an editorial published in the Vidette Online titled “We Need Gun Control Now More Than Ever,” the editorial board takes on the topic of the need for stricter gun control. The editorial board reports that if gun control isn’t more strictly enforced it will only create more mass shootings. They make the point that if there was stricter gun control many people would still be living, but their lives have been cut short because of mass shootings. The editorial board is correct when they go on to say enough is enough and we need to figure out a way to stop these mass shootings (“Editorial: We”). However, the board is not correct when they make the statement that putting an end to mass shooting is going to be solved by banning firearms all

Our second amendment clearly 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,” (amendment). But, what does that mean today? How does one start to form a way to relegated gun control when it clearly states in the Bill of Rights we have the right to bear arms? Does, the idea of every citizen of America have the right to bear arms without any control? The point of gun control is to protect the next generation of American citizens from ever having to worry about their safety. When the Bill of Rights was written down, the Founding Fathers were trying to create a better society where there was no King and people had greater freedom. For my research project I am going to focus on what people know about gun control and their point of views on how to better regulate gun control.

Sandy Hook Elementary. Aurora, Colorado. San Bernardino, California. Las Vegas, Nevada. Orlando, Florida. (Words with Negative Connotation) These are just some of the biggest mass shootings that have swept America in the past few years. Hundreds of lives are lost each year to gun related violence in the United States alone. Gun control has been a topic in our country since our founding fathers adopted the second amendment to the US constitution. Although recently controversy has sparked to an all-new extent in America due to the recent spike in mass shootings and gun related homicides. So many families and loves ones are affected each year in the United States because of gun related violence and other mass killing events, because of these events gun control laws need to be revamped and strengthened in American in order to protect the citizens.

What is gun control? Who is affected by gun control? Why should someone care about gun control? Imagine going to a concert with your friends and family, you guys are laughing and having a good time when all of a sudden someone starts shooting up the place. Are you thinking to yourself if guns were banned this wouldn't have happened? Or are you wishing you had a gun to protect everyone from what is happening? Gun Control has been an issue since the beginning of time, there are some people who think we need it and others who say we have the right to bear arms. With gun control a lot more lives could be saved and people won't have to be scared of a mass shooting happening somewhere. Children can feel safe when going to school and they won’t

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." Owning a gun has been an old American tradition. So old it is older than the country itself and is being protected by the Second Amendment; more gun control laws would break apart of our rights, which is the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment defends a persons right to own a gun without having to be a police officer, and to use that right for lawful purposes, such as self-defense within that person’s home. The right to possess and bear laws so fundamental it is as fundamental and as critical to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech,

In this paper regarding gun control I will be using multiple sources to help support my argument. I will be the rhetor, with the help of other reputable sources and authors. The purpose of this paper is to show why gun control is something that is very much needed in America. There needs to be gun control, however, it does not mean people need to lose their right to own a gun. The audience of this article is republican politicians in the United States Government that are in charge of creating gun control regulations. This is the main audience because these are the people who can make changes to laws and policies to create safer gun distribution. In this paper I will show how gun control, without taking away the right to own a gun, can be achieved. This will be done by using facts, statistics, and by comparing American gun polices to gun policies of other countries.

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

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).