Gun Related Shootings

The studies and research on gun control has opened up many ideas on how weak the current laws really are. Crime rates consist of high numbers. “Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii”

The gun debate in the United States widely revolves around the intended interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those who support gun rights claim that the founding fathers developed and subsequently ratified the Second Amendment to guarantee the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Those who want more stringent gun laws feel that the founding fathers directed this Amendment solely to the formation of militias and are thus, outdated.

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

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

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

Everyone in the United States of America has an opinion on gun control regardless of their age, race, or religion. From within those opinions arguments are formed. People are arguing about gun control at their jobs, at their schools, and sometimes at their places of worship. On one side of things there are the people that support gun control like certain politicians or political organizations, teachers, police officers, and so on. On the other side of things there are the people that are against gun control, people such as hunters and various types of criminals. When it comes down to sensitive topics like gun control, there are very few people that do not choose a side. The Second Amendment, like all Amendments that constitute the Bill of

The second amendment of the United States 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” (Constitution). This has started a huge debate on whether or not this should be true. On one hand people believe that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" make an individual right in constitution. Under this theory the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. Gun control is considered unconstitutional by many American citizens, as it should be. Gun control is laws or

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution peruses: "A very much managed Militia, being important to the security of a free State, the privilege of the individuals to keep and remain battle ready, might not be encroached." Such dialect has made extensive open deliberation in regards to the Amendment's planned degree. From one perspective, some accept that the Amendment's expression "the privilege of the individuals to keep and remain battle ready" makes an individual established a good fit for nationals of the United States. Under this "individual right hypothesis," the United States Constitution limits authoritative bodies from denying gun ownership, or at any rate, the Amendment renders prohibitory and prohibitive regulation hypothetically

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,

According to the past summaries ledgers provided by GunViolenceArchive.org the number of gun related incidents has increased over the past three years, along with the number of children deaths. Furthermore, as demonstrated by the charts, the number of deaths has been steadily increasing over the past three years by about 1,000 deaths, a crazy number that should be going in the opposite direction.

Gun control is one of the most talked about topics in modern day America. 43 of 50 states have the right to bear arms. Most states have to background check you in order for you to purchase or sell guns. Some other states prevent carrying guns and some other ban assault rifle weapons. People who support the gun laws say that the second amendment was meant for militias and that gun restrictions have always existed. People who oppose that say that guns are needed for self-defense from people who invade houses or are actual threats. Although both of those are correct, there will always be two sides for control laws.

The controversy with the Second Amendment is that it does not clarify who “the people” are. Therefore, leaving room for legislative bodies and courts to interpret and influence their decision on how laws become introduce and enforced. Therefore, if we let an individual interpret the Second Amendment we will get different opinions. For instance, we have the gun control activist, that believe that since there is not a militia, no individual should possess firearms.The activist back up their claims by stating that the possession of weapons make the country unsafe and puts children at risk children at risk of finding the weapon and accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. They also believe that only the police or government officials should have the right to carry weapons and that by banning guns it would minimizes the gang related shootings that take the lives of many innocent bystanders every day. On the other hand, we have the anti-gun control activists arguing that banning guns will not reduce crime instead it would leave law abiding citizens vulnerable to armed criminals. For instance, they mention that if convicted felons manage to get their hands on a weapon now, who says that by banning them is going to stop them from doing

The second amendment is one of the most argumentative laws in our society today. There is the side that believes firearms are dangerous and should be restricted, and there are those who feel that owning a gun is a right to life. Some would even call it the American way. I can see from both sides where they should regulate and be more strict on who is able to carry or own a firearm and who isnt.

A major issue that is spreading like wildfire lately is the right to bear arms. This Second Amendment enshrined by the Constitution proclaims: “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” (“Right to Bear Arms”). Many people have the argument that the Second Amendment provides individuals the right to own guns, others say that this amendment was set to apply to states’ rights, rather than individual rights. One side claims violence while the other side states protection and legal right.

As the United States mass shootings have become more common, the amount of people who are in favor of assault rifle restrictions have increased exponentially. In fact, in a recent broadcast on National Public Radio with political reporter Danielle Kurtzleben, Kurtzleben quotes a poll her team offered to the public in the days following the Las Vegas shooting where she found that 80% of the people that her team polled are “in favor of a variety of bans.” These bans included “assault-style” weapons, high capacity magazines, or bump stock attachments. The most surprising fact was around 70% of republicans responded to her team’s poll saying they supported the bans. Gun control used to be a topic that was dominated by democratic support with Republicans opposing any type of restriction on the countries’ second amendment; however, in recent times, more republicans have begun siding with the democrats to some extent and supporting certain types of assault rifle gun control, believing that either the rifle itself or the attachments are a danger to the public.