Gun Control: Intertwines With The 2nd Amendment

Gun control in America is one of the most fiercely debated topics in today’s political sphere. Nearly everyone has an opinion and there is a mind-boggling amount of information typically discussed regarding the matter. Media hot takes and campaign talking points aside, far too many lives have been lost to gun violence. A total of 12,902 in 2016, to be exact. The fact that more lives have been lost to gun violence in the United States this year than the 5,000 lost in the almost 10-year war effort overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan is appalling. Is sensible and reasonable gun control progress attainable in our near future? That remains to be seen, however it is my intention to respectfully dissect an argument presented by none other than an essay

The Second Amendment 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”. The way the Supreme Court interprets this amendment changes constantly because not even the Supreme Court fully understands the limits and rights given to citizens. Some argue that this amendment protects our right to own a gun, but is not very clear. Over the years the second amendment has become a huge debate over gun rights and gun control. This is a cause of all the gun violence this country has been facing for many years and they need a way to help prevent gun violence or even suppress the amount of deaths faced by these tragedies. One of the ways this

The United States of America is one of the very few countries in the world that allows their citizens to bear arms. The right to bear arms traces back all the way to the times of the 13 colonies. The Second Amendment has been up for many debates, especially in the recent light of mass shootings in the US. But does the entire removal and ban of firearms really work? Gun control and the second amendment has been a never ending conflict between politicians. As we look further into gun control there are more draw backs for the citizens than benefits.

Should more gun control laws be intact? Gun control is a very controversial topic with people saying that more gun control laws should be intact and many people saying that there shouldn’t be gun control laws, both sides have valid points and are debated intensely all over America. It has seemingly came back up as a intensely debated topic due to a new bill in place to let concealed carrier carry their guns pretty much anywhere with few restrictions. It also seems to be one of the most ongoing political topics for the last two decades. Gun control laws should not be intact. People need to be able to protect themselves and should feel safe in their own home. People should also be allowed to have guns for hunting and for sport.

Whenever the Second Amendment is discussed, gun control is usually the focus of the discussion due to the connections that gun control and the Second Amendment have. Although the Second Amendment protects the individual right to firearms, the unlimited right is not. America was founded through guns, using their own arms to fight the British in order to gain independence, making it natural for America to be heavily focused on guns. However, many people have abused the weapon, making the controversial topic of gun control a reality.

be set off by being hit by a rock, a nail, or being thrown into the

The second Amendment to the Constitution, which concern is the rights to bear arms, has always been a hot-button issue, especially during election season. In the United States, the ability to choose whether or not to own a gun means favoring or opposing the right and the legislation restricting rights that come with it. For years, gun rights and gun control groups alike have been lobbying Congress for decades to sway legislation to their respective favors. The question then become, should the United States have more control over guns? The issue of guns in America should remain in the hands of the citizens because it helps people feel more safe and they help prevent people from becoming victims of crime.

Guns, Guns, Guns. In today’s news Gun Control, has become a controversial topic. I have heard many people say that, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. So, do we need gun control? People talk because they have mouths, they don’t know the extent about gun violence. About half of the country’s population is for / against gun control. Consistently, the media outlets are reporting shootings, that is accidental or intentional whichever way it is trending across the United States. Stronger gun control laws, mains fewer suicides. Also, stronger gun control laws, needed to protect women from domestic abusers and stalkers. Such a variety of individuals say that stricter gun control legislation is an assault on the second amendment. As we all know, the second amendment protects everyone who has a firearm. Many people should be able to protect themselves from local criminals or vicious attacks indeed, but some individuals abuse their rights. To some people gun control is an issue, and to others it is not an issue. I strongly believe in adding more laws to the gun control policy that it will reduce the crime rate. I stand strongly with being able to carry around a firearm, but stricter gun control laws should be implemented. Reasons being, if stricter laws are being put into place, we as an society can have safer communities and not have any fear for our lives as we walk down the streets.

The research that I conducted this semester focused on the Second Amendment and whether or not it should eliminate. Essay one, "The Rights to Bear Arms" explains citizens have the right to rebel against a tyrannical government by using guns for self-defense, and the gun owner shouldn 't deprive of something they love because other people abuse it. Essay two “Gun control” argue that the Second Amendment should eliminate because it increased the potential for crimes and the number of accidental gun deaths, creates an unsafe environment, and legally owned guns are frequently stolen and used by criminals. Although both essays relied on academic research, they are not concise enough to the point and confuse the reader.

“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 right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American

This paper explores how policy has transform gun control in the United States since the implementation of the New Deal in 1933. The policy overview will include the National Firearms Act, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the most recent Obama’s executive order to reduce gun violence. The policy overview will also include interest groups and evaluate how they influence the policy making process. This paper will also discuss if each interest group works on the national/ sub national level, how they are funded, if they advocate directly to the United State legislative bodies or use the grass roots approach, and what incentives each group offers for membership. All of this will lead into the research

Lately, as a nation, it seems that we can’t progress more than a month without hearing an incident on national news concerning a shooting. Every shooting that occurs is gaining the national media spotlight. This is prompting leaders and politicians around the country to call for further gun control to answer this current epidemic. Creating new gun laws is not the solution. This only creates extra problems with law-abiding citizens obtaining a firearm and infringing on their second amendment right of the United States constitution 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.” The second amendment may be viewed from different points or have various interpretations; although, this amendment gives law-abiding citizens of this country the right to own a firearm.

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

Do you agree with gun control? The second amendment and gun control has always been a special and talkative topic in United states. Left and right incidents happen and there is always someone arguing that we should have gun control. I personally and 100% disagree with gun control. Although the choice is yours I bet you will agree with me after reading my essay. Lets dive into the world of politics.

Like almost every right, the Second Amendment is not and was not intended to be completely unlimited. Although it is difficult to identify exactly what the Founding Fathers intended to limit and afford, many concepts can be logically inffered. Additionally, contemporary court cases have attempted to make these limitations more definable. For instance, the federal government prohibited the purchase of handguns by any citizen below the age of 21 in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. Although an age restriction probably would not have been endorsed by the Founding Fathers, it is currently constitutional due to precedent case ruling.