Argumentative Essay On The 2nd Amendment

“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.” - Second Amendment. Throughout history, this sentence of twenty seven words has caused an intense debate. The polemic is that some people claim that a gun control policy is unconstitutional, while others disagree and even say it is necessary in order to reduce crime. Now, what does gun control mean? If it means to analyze who is responsible enough to own a gun by a “Universal Background Check”; that sounds right to everyone. But in the article “What Are Obama’s Gun Control Proposals? An Easy Guide” published in the National Journal by Matt Vasilogambros. The author states that the “gun-control

We have had several of the worst mass shootings in our nation's history in quick succession over the past few years. Certain legal restrictions and acts from our government could have prevented numerous deaths. Common sense background checks and limitations to cartridge size and assault weapons would surely have saved many lives at the Las Vegas Massacre, but certain men and women claim that these restrictions violate their second amendment right. They claim that guns aren't the problem. That guns don't kill people, people kill people. So limiting access to devastating guns is just avoiding the problem. The Second Amendment right presumably violated by common sense gun control is “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” (Second Amendment). The Second Amendment states that for the need of a well regulated militia to protect the security of the free state and the right for the people to keep and bear arms. Militias have been inactive for decades so in a sense the intent of the amendment is no longer relevant. Based on the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution is not still a valuable and viable document in modern America because it stands in the way of thorough background checks, training courses, and its vague wording and absolute intent make it inefficient to maintain peace and order and should be amended “To the People of the United

In this case, Dick Heller, a police officer, authorized to carry a handgun while on duty wanted a handgun to own and keep at his home. The District of Columbia refused so Dick Heller filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia, which eventually also went to the Supreme Court. In June 2008, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined the provisions of the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 as unconstitutional. They stated that “handguns or arms for the purpose of self-defense do not have to be trigger locked”.

Most people would link violence and crime problems with gun control in America. The debate that Americans face today is the freedom the Second Amendment gives citizens and whether or not the country should repeal it. While some people feel that repealing it should solve the problem, others believe that it is one of the most important basic freedoms we have as Americans. Federal gun control laws are unconstitutional, and I believe the Second Amendment is both an individual and state right.

“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.

District of Columbia v. Heller is a court case that occurred through the years of 2007 through 2008. The reason of the occurrence of this court case is because Dick Anthony Heller was a special police officer in D.C.. He was authorized to carry a handgun on duty but not off duty because of D.C.’s policy on firearms. D.C. made it illegal to carry unregistered firearms and prohibited the registration of handguns. However the Chief of Police could issue a one year license to carry a handgun.

Ever since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791 the right of the people to keep and bear arms has played a factor in the United States history. Sides have been taken and people have fought over the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Everybody has an opinion on every topic that has ever come up. While opinions can vary, there can be some common grounds for viewpoints. Commonly, the Second Amendment is looked at as a two-sided issue; (1) Citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms and (2) Citizens should not be allowed to own and carry firearms. But in looking at a community of people who own firearms, it is evident that even in what seems to be a two sided argument has room for many different positions on one side

EW YORK (WENY) - In a effort top stop terrorist attacks, two lawmakers from the New York City area are looking to restrict the sale of ammunition for New York gun owners. Under the draft legislation it would limit ammunition to no more than twice the amount of the capacity of the weapon every 90-days.

People misuse or overuse the right to bear arms. Society believes since it is written in the constitution, we are able to own a gun for individual self defense or other purposes. Notably, the “right of self-defense is described by St. George Tucker as the first law of nature.”” In other cases, people believe it should not be in the constitution because it can be dangerous. However, another theory is that the constitutions defining statement is the people are to protect our democratic values. Uphold our traditional principles by defending against the foreign threats or domestic tyranny. With all of these concluding solutions to the nations debate over the right to bear arms, it is no wonder the U.S. has not come to a final decision. America, of course, will most likely never come to an agreement. Despite the argument, the second amendment is shaped to benefit the

I do and always will believe in the second amendment. People have the right to own and carry guns with them wherever they go. People have the right to own guns for hunting purposes and putting food on the table to feed their family, and they also have the right to carry a gun with them for self defence and keep in the house to protect their family. It is and always will be my belief that people have the right do whatever it is that they want to do when it comes to

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

In my opinion, the second amendment should stay the same and not be changed. People should have the right to have guns. What was the point of making that an amendment if we are just going to change that? For instance, if someone were to be out in the middle of nowhere I believe they should be able to have a gun on them because there are strange people in the world and you never know what could happen. Even if we were to try to get rid of all of the guns people would probably hide some and the people without them would then be in danger. I think that guns are used because they also help people not only protect people from others, but also from the wild or just to go out and hunt some animals for some food.

What happened to the Second Amendment rights? What happens when a law abiding citizen is disarmed? What is the cause for the recent drop in gun violence over the past several years? How can we compare gun laws and regulations to the Eighteenth Amendment?

The 1st amendment came from the people of America and they wanted the people to have freedom, but not too much that the Country will be in ruins“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." so they set boundaries so they people won’t kill the nation. People were killing people because people were not doing the ways of the what some people wanted the other people wanted to do so they killed them and got away.Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.-John Milton But after the amendments were made fewer people killing and violently assembling because of the 1st amendment.The 1st amendment is important because it lets people Peacefully