Gun Control Pros and Cons in the United 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.” 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.

The second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of people to bear arms and was adopted in 1791. It guarantees all Americans "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is more described as supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Former Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger writes an essay regarding “The Right To Bear Arms,” that originally appeared in the Parade Magazine in the 1990’s that questions if “The Right To Bear Arms,” is an outdated idea. Burger argument is that the gun control would lower if handguns were lowered. He also talks about the”Militias,” which is an army that protects the security of the state. Our “State Militias,” in our time, serves as a huge national defense.

“Americans are deeply divided over the Second Amendment. Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns. Others, that it does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias” (Cornell). The Second Amendment of the constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms, and is therefore one of the most important laws of the nation. This amendment holds an important value to our nation because, it prevents tyranny but, it also protects, spreads, and contributes to the causes of human rights. Over the past years there’s been controversy among the people and the true meaning of the Second Amendment. The understanding of the Second Amendment was to be a civic right in which who keep and bear arms will need to meet a legal obligation of participating in a well-regulated militia (Cornell 2). The definition for a well-regulated militia means to provide help in which involves carrying out the laws of the union, end rebellions against the government and protect against invasions. Thus, the Second Amendment shaped the country in which we live today. This country is bound on civil rights and individual freedom. In the book A Well Regulated Militia by Saul Cornell the debates in 1780-1850 took part into shaping what it will become the Second Amendment. This is because gun ownership will be seen as a civic obligation. Gun ownership is a civic obligation because it brings the need for protecting the nation. Shay’s rebellion was one of the

The right to bear arms is interpreted different among two groups: gun advocates and gun control advocates. Gun advocates believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees their right to gun ownership, and any legislative body who tries to prohibit such would be in direct violation of this amendment. On the other hand, gun control interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that legislative bodies should be able to prohibit citizens from owning or purchasing firearms and the right to bear arms applied only when the use of militias was relevant. “Time and again, the pro- and anti-gun factions of American society have appealed to the Supreme Court, the last judge of the law, for a resolution of their differences.” (). Also, the Supreme Court, along with local governments, have interpreted the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has stated citizens did not have the inherent right to bear arms, a total ban on a type of firearms was unconstitutional, and the regulation of individual firearms and restriction of firearm privileges on criminals, handicapped, and mentally disabled were subjected to the State. “The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, … and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,”().

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

“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

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

Gun control is a highly controversial issue with each proponent (Pro vs. Con) providing statistics and facts supporting their standpoint. However, in the past several decades, advocates supporting gun control have significantly suffered with state’s enacting concealed carry legislation. The Constitution of the United States of America, the Second Amendment, is one of the most prevalent issues in government. To further reduce their stance, recent court decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), has reassured citizens that their Second Amendment rights shall not be infringed upon by any government entity. 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.”

Should gun control laws be changed? Well, first, gun control is entirely based off the notion that people are committing gun related crimes because they have access to them and these debates are whether or not the nation should ban guns entirely. This whole rebel of gun control change is said to help reduce violent crimes (Swickard). This is a well-known debate in today’s world. Many are involved in protests all around the world, while their schools are getting shot up and are asking for changes to make gun control laws stricter. However, the fact is, guns are not the problem in this world, it is the individual. If you put a gun in a criminal’s hand, they could do whatever they wish. Gun control laws should not be changed because current laws

Despite centuries of evidence that gun control laws do not lower crime, stop violence, or make society safer in any way, gun control advocates continue to chip away at our Second Amendment rights. For a group (yes, liberals) who typically don’t care for hard work, working hard to rob us of our freedom to keep and bear, seems to suit them just fine.

In the world today, we often hear about the gun control debate. There are two main, obvious sides in the debate, to enforce more rules for gun control or to leave things the way they are. I believe in the Second Amendment right to bear arms given to all citizens of the United States by the Constitution.

In recent years, violence has affected society immensely; in the Las Vegas community specifically, bullying, and crimes involving deadly weapons have been detrimental to the hearts of families.

Gun Control is a set of laws that provide limitations on gun ownership by civilians. Gun control has been argued over many years due to advances in technology with weaponry, and whether it is actually necessary to keep the limitations. One major example people are for gun control are the previous acts of terrorism on the United States. People are concerned that background checks are not being performed or not examined deep enough. Background checks one possible way to keep gun control under fair limits. Although the U.S government can not fully ban the ownership of weapons to civilians, there are some limitations that can be questionable. Limitations such as gun modifications to make them more lethal seems like a limitations that should not even exist. But because of recent events

Gun control in the United States usually refers to a group of laws that affect a citizen's right to own and or carry a firearm of some type. The jurisdiction of these laws is a very con topic in the United States. The citizens are passionate about both sides of the issue. This makes establishing laws very difficult because there is an abundance of information that must be considered. Gun control is a very controversial topic with a vast amount of information accompanying it.