CBA: An Example Of The Second 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.” These are the famous words drafted by the founding fathers into the Bill of Rights. This particular amendment has since then been a major part of American culture. Through the second amendment it has given American citizens freedom to buy firearms of any sort: AR-15s, AK-47s, handguns, and the like for self-defense. However, in light of the most recent mass shootings, people have felt that it is time to change if not regulate the freedom the second amendment grants. That is to say that some believe that there needs to be a solution to reduce if not end the gun violence in America by regulating and restricting the access to weapons meant for the police and military by American civilians. Ultimately, the solution to this social problem of gun violence in America is gun control. What is gun control exactly? From an extreme conservative's perspective, gun control is a means of disarming the public and infringing the right the second amendment grants Americans. What this point of view fails to take into account is that gun control is not about infringing on any right or disarming American civilians. It is about restricting the access and sales of deadly firearms to potential felons who have the capability of using them to commit mass murder. Furthermore, what some do not realize is that the second amendment was written in

With the current gun control regulations in America, all federally licensed dealers must run background checks on their transactions. However, not all sellers have to be licensed, including those who sell at gun shows (Sherman, 2016). This creates what Democrats refer to as the Gun Show Loophole, where people who would be denied the purchase of a gun due to a federal background check are able to acquire

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

Imagine Black Friday shopping at the local mall knowing that people all around could be carrying loaded guns! Even though this may sound far fetched, under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, citizens have the right to possess and carry guns. Was this the intent of the Founding Fathers when they penned the Second Amendment? When written, the Second Amendment was about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats (Truthout). Gun control is one of the hottest topics at water cooler discussions across America today. This topic is very polarizing. American citizens news feeds are flooded with stories about shootings on a daily basis, innocent victims being shot during a crime, senseless mass shoots, shots fired in self-defense, police shootings of criminals, and last but not least, the shooting that occurs in war. Americans are bombarded with reports and images of gun violence from television, the press, social media, and computer war games. Yet, how many people have actually held a gun? How many have

What would you say if I were to tell you that over the past seven days, approximately 200 people have been killed by guns in the United States? What if then I said that from 1982 to 2012 in the U.S., there have been 62 mass shootings? And then, what if I told you that of the shooters in those 62 shootings, the youngest was only 11 years old? This child, along with a 13-year-old accomplice, stole 7 guns from his father and the other child’s grandfather and ambushed people outside of a school, killing 5 and wounding 10 (“A Guide to Mass Shootings in America”, April 18, 2016). The Second Amendment to the Constitution gives the people the right to bear and own arms, but it has been misinterpreted because when it was created, it was intended for states to have a militia to prevent the government from imposing unfair legislation as King George did to the colonies. Now people look at this Amendment as an unconditional right to own a gun no matter what. This was not the intent of the Amendment originally. It was originally intended to keep the citizens of this country safe and the way to do this, at the time, was to let them have a gun. Now there are many more ways to keep people safe other than owning a gun. The current laws regulating the purchasing of firearms and ammunition in the United States are practically nonexistent, and so badly upheld and enforced that they might as well not be there at all.

As today's society struggles with the continuous problems surrounding gun violence, many Americans are questioning whether or not our Second Amendment is applicable to our society as of today. Undeniably, our circumstances as a nation in the United states differs dramatically from when The Constitution adopted the Second Amendment in 1791. This document states 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." At this time our founding fathers had no idea of the challenges we would currently face as a nation and recently the United States recorded its deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S history. Proving that the Second Amendment has not been applicable with today's society, it being outdated, the frequent tragedies through gun violence, and the lack of regulations currently being displayed.

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.” Today, we have no reason to fear our military barging into our homes. One might say, “What about burglars?” How can burglars use guns to hurt us if we have strict gun laws? There should be extensive background research on those who want to own a gun, and universal background checks. The numbers from Adam Lankford’s, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of Alabama, study do show that restrictive gun laws make a difference (Christensen, Jen. "U.S. Leads the World in Mass Shootings - CNN.com." CNN). In Australia, for example, there were four mass shootings between 1987 and 1996. After the incidents, Parliament passed stricter gun laws. There hasn’t been a mass shooting in Australia since the new laws were passed (Christensen, Jen. "U.S. Leads the World in Mass Shootings - CNN.com." CNN). Some people like Ben Carson who said “I never saw a body with bullet holes that was more devastating than taking the right to arm ourselves away”(The Editorial Board. "The Children Left Behind After Mass Shootings." The New York Times). find it ok to have hundreds of thousands of people dead instead of one person not having his or her desire. It is outrageous that anyone would think so, and even more absurd that someone who is suppose to vow to protect us is selling us out to

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,

The Second Amendment of the Constitution has drawn a great deal of criticism especially in recent years. The topic of gun control is controversial throughout these past few years because of the many mass shooting being committed through the the use of guns. 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.”(“Guns and Violence”, 2016) I came about this issue because of the recent events that took place involving guns causing a mass shooting done by a person legally allowed to get weapons. This even made it seem as if weapon killing innocents are the norm in the United States because of all the mass shooting that have taken place throughout the past few years. I wanted to do research on what would happen if there are gun control laws placed in the U.S government, would it make America a safer place or a more dangerous place. “Expanding background checks for gun purchasers to a wider range of gun sales was also judged effective and popular. It is an idea that was considered by Congress in 2013, but failed to win enough votes to become law (Bui, 2017).” This quote got me thinking why do people not want to limit gun control if it might help the safety of Americans. Gun laws need to be changed so that guns are harder to obtain for those who are not deemed fit to hold a gun and allowed for those to carry as a method of protection from the government from overpowering us and from criminals.

Imagine this: you are in World History class at your high school almost falling asleep learning about Ancient China. It is a normal day for you and your classmates, until you hear an announcement from the principal. You expect the typical lockdown drill, but this situation is far from typical. A man with a gun breaks into your school. BANG! Several of your classmates are killed before this man can be controlled. You survive, but live the rest of your life thinking back to that day and wonder if you could’ve done anything differently. What you should be asking yourself is how did this crazy man get a gun? Although this situation is hypothetical, it has occurred several times in the United States. This is due to the loose gun laws of the United States. The Second Amendment protects the right for all citizens to have guns to form militias and fight against a tyrannical government. While this was built into the original constitution, it is causing many unnecessary problems in the U.S. today. Also, this definition carries little weight with militias no longer existing today. The United States should reassess gun control laws, resulting in decreased gun violence, and ultimately saving countless innocent lives.

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 the United State, we have a gun violence issue. As a society, we have increasingly more examples of individuals tragically dying due to the use of guns. This has become a polarizing issue for this country, as we grapple with the issue of gun control. A very simple answer would be ban all guns from individuals, but unfortunately, for some, this statement is in direct violation of our Second Amendment. 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.” (U.S. Const. Amend. II.) From 1791 to 2008, our perception of this issue was defined by attorneys, senators, slave owners and freemen, judges, governors and the supreme court. For some it was decided based on the role of the militia, for others it was their right to own a gun that should not be infringed upon, others it was the state versus federal government. (Yuhas, 2017) “In 2008, the supreme court decided the District of Columbia v Heller, 5-4, overturning a handgun ban in the city. The conservative justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion in narrow but unprecedented terms: for the first time in the country’s history, the supreme court explicitly affirmed an individual’s right to keep a weapon at home for self-defense.” (Yuhas, 2017)

Many arguments for and against gun control in our country revolve around the second amendment. Unfortunately the majority of those arguments are based on an individual’s perception of what the second amendment means. The second amendment was adopted into the United States Bill of Rights in 1791, which was 222 years ago. The second amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (National Archives and Records Administration). In that span of 222 years there have been many court cases and adjustments to the second amendment, some of those changes have remained and some have been

In Australia, approximately 3,050,000 citizens own a gun. In Canada, approximately 9,950,000 citizens own a gun. In Japan, approximately 710,000 citizens own a gun. Most countries have 10,000,000 gun owners or less – which sounds like a lot. But not compared to the United States. In the United States, approximately 270,000,000 citizens own a gun (Rogers 1). The US is ranked first in the world by rate of gun ownership and has on average, about 20 times the gun murder rate than all other countries. Do these numbers mean nothing? When is America going to realize that guns cause more damage than they do good? Gun violence is a big problem in the US, but that can change due to gun control. Gun control is the regulation of

When people discuss the 2nd amendment in the United States, more commonly referred to as “gun control,” it seems there are two dominant arguments. One argument states that guns kill people, while the opposition argues that people kill people. I find myself supporting the latter of the two. The idea of gun control is not necessarily the taking of all guns from citizens – although some would have it this way – rather place heavy restrictions on the purchase and possession of weapons and ammunition. For example, suppose a toddler retrieves a firearm from his parents’ closet then accidently shoots himself or someone else. Several would argue if the government enacted stricter gun laws there would be less incidents similar to this. Others would