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

Guns, used for a wide variety of things, such as hunting, sports, and defense. Though destructive, guns have their uses. But what allows citizens to own guns in the U.S.? The answer to that question is the 2nd amendment. The amendment states that citizens can bear guns, and that a free state should have a good militia. At the end of the amendment, the amendment states that it should not be infringed. Back in 2012 Obama was claimed to try to take away guns. Should guns be taken away from U.S. citizens, or even the whole second amendment? Well, the second amendment should not be taken away, because guns provide defense against attackers, state militias provide more safety, and the amendment itself says it should not

You don't have to worry about a criminal committing the same crime twice, why? Because they won't be alive to even think about it!. The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution states “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”, in other words, it protects American citizens from excessive or unnecessary punishments, fines, and bails. However, the death penalty is still an exception to “cruel and unusual punishments” when the punishment does not violate the standards of the Eighth Amendment. Based on the creation of death penalty in the eighth amendment, the constitution can be claimed as an inconsistently valuable but viable document in modern America. The death penalty also known as capital punishment is one that brings a lot of controversies but at the same time has been practiced throughout history in different forms and styles.

Life would most definently be different if we did not have the first amendment. The first amendment states a total of five different rights. These rights include the right to form an assembly and petition, and the right to freedom of speech, press and religion. We are given the right to assembly in the fact that we are allowed to group and express the way we feel about something. This being said, the right to speech is also important because we are allowed to express thoughts, (to a degree.)

More than than 270,000 troops are being denied their gun rights,mainly from the thoughts of those who are against the 2nd Amement. It really is common in the United States. And they also are very powerful and one shot can change your life for the worst, if used incorrectly. And that shot can or even could killed somebody. And that what makes them deadly. Guns are essiential to the United States of America because guns give us protection, and they are used for hunting and other recreational activities, and they really aren’t the biggest problem to the country.

How can the original writing and intent of the second amendment, be relevant in our society today?

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.

Although the 2nd Amendment only contains one sentence, the interpretation of it can be misconstrued if the use of critical thought is not applied during the analysis. Supporters of gun control argue that the ambiguous language in the 2nd Amendment leads to confusion about the interpretation. That in itself warrants further discussion about rewriting the 2nd Amendment or simply eradicating it. Also, the provision is outdated and no longer coincides with the times. In regards to the addition of “well regulated militia,” guns were meant to protect people from tyranny and any form of militarized government suppression. With that said, firearms should alternatively be restricted from other uses with

The U.S constitution is in place to protect citizens rights from the government. It plays as a check in balance in powers amongst the most powerful. But why is that even with the constitution in place to protect us, we find certain discrepancies which result in Supreme Court cases or Landmark cases. One of the most disputable amendments in our constituting governmental platform is, to much surprise, the 2nd amendment. In my opinion, its due to its broadness in explanation. According to constitutioncenter, the 2nd amendment Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791, and its states as followed, “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.” As you can see, its brief in what its prerogative is, but not specific on situational based questions. We as humans want to know the “what ifs” in any situation especially when something isn’t addressed. This results in cases that end up in the Supreme court. One of the most notable cases regarding the 2nd amendment, was District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

Death, violence, individual rights, crime, and cost are many words that arise when researching the controversial topic of gun control. This issue revolves around the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and 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.” Is there a black and white answer or is there a need to find a middle ground? The foundational right must be preserved for an individual to own a gun. However, basic safety measures need to be in place for added protection and security of all Americans. To explore why this balance is the best option, it is necessary to look further into the

Didn't that happen after the American government took the Lokota's guns from them after promising them no harm would come to them? Of course in more modern times there was Waco, where our government bombed a religious community and ultimately killed 82 of its members, including women and children ..... Our government is not to be trusted and that is the very reason our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment so "We the People" can keep a check and balance on "We the People's" government

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.

It has been proven that different laws on personal guns for American citizens would save lives. If laws change by “implementing federal universal background checks could reduce firearm deaths by a projected 56.9%; background checks for ammunition purchases could reduce deaths by a projected 80.7%; and gun identification requirements could reduce deaths by a projected 82.5%” (“Background of the Issue - Gun Control - ProCon.org.”). Guns are too easy to get hold of now legally or illegally so more control needs to happen such as background checks. Misinterpreting the 2nd amendment is killing lives.

Some Americans feel that because guns are already regulated in so many other countries, America should just follow suit, while others believe guns both represent and help guarantee our independence, our liberty, and our freedom to make our own decisions. The founding fathers anticipated that gun control could become a serious issue in the future, so they added the Second Amendment to the Constitution. 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.“ Most gun control activists focus in isolation on the beginning of the amendment where the founders wrote that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. They then try to argue that only the military or the National Guard should have access to guns, not individuals. In so arguing, however, they completely ignore the last part of the Second Amendment, which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The founders obviously envisioned that the people would keep and use firearms to protect themselves and their country. Unfortunately many politicians don’t see it that way. Yet, the Supreme Court has struck down firearm bans again and again. The 2008 Supreme Court case, District of Columbia vs. Heller,

"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 second amendment has been the subject to much political disagreements and controversy. It was written and ratified in December 1791 (Brooks “The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms”). There are many who want to repeal “the right to bear arms” because they feel they feel that is why criminals get a hold of weapons so easily. Others say that citizens should have access to their own weapons and protection. Even more political controversy has arisen due to the mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas, Nevada last week-end leaving more wanting to revoke the second amendment. In spite of this, I have been brought to the conclusion that the second amendment should not be redacted because, some rely on hunting as an income, citizens have a right to defend themselves, and citizens have a right to defend their freedom.