Defining New Gun Laws Are Not The Answer

But because the second amendment cannot be changed, the Government should focus on controlling gun violence instead of gun control. As soon as people start focusing on how to stop gun violence without taking away guns, the country will see a considerably fast decline of shootings. Many laws have already been made in the 19th and 20th century to try and stop gun violence. It all varies on each state and what laws they have in place as well. In states with low population densities like Alaska and Vermont citizens are allowed to carry a concealed weapon without a permit but at places like Washington, with the highest murder rates in the country, the citizens there cannot even own a handgun. Different states, have different laws, about guns and whether you can conceal or not conceal a weapon with a license. The second amendment protects people the right to own guns for protection and cannot be changed, but laws that are put in place for gun control can take away certain types of guns and where you have access to

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

Imagine going to school where instead of worrying about a grade you got on a test, you have to worry about your school being the next victim of a mass shooting. 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” (United States Constitution), and yet instead of some people using their guns for self defense, they use it for mass shootings. Some argue that we already have gun control laws that don’t work, but others say if we had better gun laws than it would work. The debate on gun control started in November 22, 1963, when evidence in the assassination of president John F. Kennedy increased public awareness

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 second amendment states that right to keep and bear arms. This law has been etched in the United States history for centuries thus creating the highly popularized debate whether they should be gun control laws. Members and advocates of the National Rifle Association would argue against gun control. Their aim is to shift the focus away from guns and their destructive potential but instead have people focus on the criminal and shift the argument to them being mentally incapable or suggest that there is a lack of security within schools (Henigan 2009). Voices of the NRA do make valid points, however it prevents them from seeing the bigger picture. We as a society have drifted from the crux of the issue, which is, when put simply, guns are dangerous. In America, guns are extremely dangerous. Anyone who chooses to Google “gun violence statistics” and find the official research study done by the National Institute of Justice it would show you that 15 of the 25 worst mass shootings in the last 50 years took place in America. It also vividly reminds us of how guns are easily obtained. The mass shootings that took place in America over the last

The Second Amendment of the constitution of the United States was adopted on December 15, 1791. “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 Control Laws). There is controversy on the exact meaning of the Second Amendment. There is also a lot of controversy surrounding guns and gun laws, and what could be done to prevent gun violence and mass shootings in our country. There has to be a way to prevent gun violence, while still upholding the Second Amendment and protecting the rights of law abiding citizens who have the right to own and carry guns legally.

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 to the United States Constitution is a part of the Bill of Rights that guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This amendment, adopted on December 15, 1791 along with the rest of the Bill of Rights was created or several reasons. One is to ensure citizens’ rights to own a firearm. This topic has become one of the most controversial topics over the last century. It has led more debates over the rising violence in society today. For example, what role firearms play in violence, how to control the sale of weapons, and how to put an end to all violence involving guns. Guns are regulated by federal, and state, legislation. There is little, if any uniformity state versus state. The major regulatory issues are child access and prevention laws, concealed weapon carry laws, regulation on private sales to minors, regulating all secondary used market sales, ownership or purchase of ‘assault” type weapons, one handgun a month law, ban on Saturday Night Specials and others of this type, preemption, and waiting periods of ownership. The key question to control is when will it be enough. How many laws are they going to make before they ban gun sales to law-abiding citizens altogether. The Second Amendment was written for specific reasons. It was not written for them to come back and add all these provisions to it. These

“The boundaries of the Second Amendment do not coincide with the boundaries of gun control” (Blocher and Miller, 2016, p.296). Guns and the idea of gun control have been a high valued topic, between the Federal Government and state governments since the beginning of the 20th century. How strictly guns should be regulated is a common topic between the Federal Government and state governments, especially with the increase in mass shootings over the years. Although there are regulations set by the Federal Government, most of the time, it falls on state governments to mandate guns because it is easier for each state to determine what is best for it and the people that live there. State governments are more closely related to the people in

In recent years, there have been many stories of shootings taken place across various parts of the United States, all of which bring up the highly volatile topic of gun control. Unlike many other wealthy countries, such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and Australia, where gun ownership is strictly regulated, by in large-the US has very little universal gun control laws throughout the nation. This great controversy is based on the Constitutional right of the Second Amendment, stating, “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.” Though this is a Constitutional right, unlike many other Amendments, understanding they were written in

"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). Although written over two hundred years ago, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is still indispensable today. With thousands of innocent Americans murdered from the use of a firearm every year, there is a strong calling for stricter gun-control laws and regulations. Yet, every day United States citizens are forced to use their firearms for protective purposes, frequently saving their lives. While firearms pose a threat when in the wrong hands, restricting their use to only law enforcement is not the answer to ending gun violence. Though the rights granted under the Second Amendment are imperative and must not be stripped away, there are measures that should be taken in order to prevent gun violence, including the expansion of more stringent and thorough background checks and the increase in mental health screening.

The ongoing debate about gun control i largely intertwines with the 2nd Amendment. In 1791, our founding fathers ratified the 2nd amendment to the constitution, allowing the “right to bear arms”. As law-abiding citizens, we should exercise our right to carry a gun responsibly. A large portion of the American population feels that any form of gun control enactment would infringe on their rights as a gun holder and eventually eliminate their privilege to possess a firearm. Which could possibly lead to challenging other civil liberties. However, due to the carnage left from mass killings, mentally disturbed attacks, assault weapons, and terrorist, stricter

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,

America is the most well armed nation in the world, with American citizens owning about 270 million of the world’s 875 million firearms (Marshall). Indeed, this is more than a quarter of the world’s registered firearms. The reason why Americans own so many guns is because of the Second Amendment, which 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.” (Rauch) This amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to have firearms. Since this amendment is relatively vague, it is up for interpretation, and is often used by gun advocates to argue for lenient gun laws. Hence, gun control is a frequently discussed controversial topic in

Everyone has a different opinion about the issue and what should be done to solve the problem, no matter what is done the main question is would restricting the ownership of firearms be a violation of our 2nd Amendment? Our rights are in place to protect our freedoms, but when is it permissible to infringe upon those rights for the protection of the common good? The standard which is in place simply states, that your rights are in place until exercising your rights violates other rights or places others in danger. Meaning that I have the freedom of speech but that does not allow me to yell fire in a movie theater because it would endanger the common good. So now that we understand that one person’s freedoms stop where another’s starts, the question is does owning a gun infringe upon other’s rights?