Gun Restrictions Against Gun Control

One of the most important legislation part for control violence in today's society are certainly the laws related to gun control. As with every important question, there are two opposite opinions on whether in Wisconsin we should have about gun control. My opinion is that we should have more gun control in Wisconsin. My point of view is based on the ability to better protect women from domestic abuse; the threat of people who already passed background check, and the necessity to reduce mass shooting in Wisconsin.

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 Also, the provision is outdated and no longer coincides with the times.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

The Second Amendment grants us with a means of self-defense and establishes greater power for the people as one. It also grants us protection from potential dangers such as invaders, robbers, and even terrorists while also allowing us a means to protect our property and our children. Lately however, the government has attempted to strictly enforce and regulate gun control policies, which could potentially result in a tyrannical government. The government argues that strictly

The rise in cases of gun violence and related incidences of assault has drawn the public to the issue of guns and gun control. Such has been evident within the spheres of politics especially with the last election period seeing the incumbent president Donald Trump suggesting on stringent gun control laws. However, despite the acknowledgment of the need to have better gun laws, much ground and consensus has never reached. Such, to an extent, contributed to the current lack of political goodwill within the country to have the necessary legislations enacted to facilitate the same on the controls (Grandy 23). Of the guns under question are the assault rifles. Like the military weapons, assault rifles have a destructive potential to causing

The second amendment of the constitution 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.” (Cornell Law) For over fifty years, the amendment has been interpreted to the courts that people individually do not have the right to own gun, but rather that this right is to be regulated by legislatives on the federal,

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

They believe it also ensures that people cannot be taken over by a domestic or foreign military (Flamehorse 1). Having too many gun control laws could create an unbalanced level of power between the government and the members of society. Less restrictions and laws keeps the balance in check and prevents governments from having military power over the people . In addition, most citizens believe gun laws will make our nation safer by reducing the number of guns in the population, as well as the types of guns allowed for ownership. However, laws are not followed by those that commit crimes. For example, the city of Chicago prohibited the sale of guns in the city limits effective in 2010. In 2010 there were 432 murders, and in 2012 there were 500. Chicago was recently named by the FBI as the nation’s murder capital (Flamehorse 1). This would indicate more laws do not necessarily result in a decrease in crime. The gun control topic is also a factor in the political world. The two major parties in the United States do not agree on gun control rights or laws. Therefore, large sums of money are spent on advertising and lobbyists in order to make their ideas and beliefs known to voters. In 2011, $4,212,996 was spent by gun rights groups and $240,000 was spent by gun control groups (Sanburn 2).

The United States is in a controversy of whether or not the Second Amendment is protecting our country or killing it. The United States owns approximately 250 million guns, nearly one for each citizen, and grows about 7 million each year. Experts believe that the Second Amendment in the Constitution is rational and legal, author of, Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment Don B. Kates states that the “Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; however, they do not say that you can go around shooting people and claiming that you are

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,

Every year, thousands of people, innocent or guilty die from gun violence in the United States. Gun violence is despicable while guns are still lawful with a permit. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution 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” (Cornell). This statement means that the government were to ever become corrupt the people have the rights to guns in order to protect themselves. This amendment was written because of the Revolutionary War. The founding fathers didn 't want the people to be defenseless like they were against the British so they guaranteed that right. However, our founding fathers failed to think about the disadvantages of giving access to guns in our country so easily. Many people debate that there should be more limits on gun control considering the many deaths and mass shootings that have occurred in the United States. Our country leads all nations in gun violence yet some still debate that it 's in the constitution for a reason, for the protection of the people.

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

In the last 3 years, 1000 mass shootings were committed in the United States are which is why the majority of the U.S. citizens do not feel safe in their own country. As a consequence, for the local attempts to convince the regime to act, the U.S government adopted laws for the restriction of firearm use. However, the number of deaths caused by firearms is still significant. For this reason, this essay will discuss the question whether the laws surrounding gun control in America should be restricted.

Imagine, what if United State passed laws for everyone to own a gun. Oh, No!!! The rate of death will rapidly increase in everyday. According to the Second Amendment, it 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." In other words, individual has right to bear guns for safety when necessary and it is not going to be violated. In order to own a gun, requirements are necessary which gives the permit of gun to an individual. People who support the gun control believe that, gun violence would be reduced, if government keep passing laws on gun. Those laws will restrict people from shooting. Opponents of gun control say that, the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns that guns are needed for self defense from local criminals and gun ownership deters crime rather than causes more crime. Meaning, amendment gave right to bear arm for self protection. Therefore, having more gun will be safer for them and for the society also. However, none of the parties are right about it because from my point of view, having gun is causing more dangerous among people in society and also for the country because having gun is not preventing any crime however, it is increasing the rate of more crimes. People who own a gun and shoot whoever they think are dangerous, is the person who is becoming the criminal not the other person who is around the gun owner.

There are two different arguments and interpretations of the second amendment. The first being that only the militia should have the right to bear arms, whereas the second being that the amendment give every citizen the right to bar arms. There is proof that the second amendment gives every citizen the right to bear arms; Thomas Jefferson said that, “No free man shall be debarred the use of arms. ("Second Amendment to the United States Constitution")” Patrick Henery Said, “The great object is that every man be armed. ("The James Madison Research Library and Information Center")” Even James Madison who introduced the bill of rights said that, its amendments “relate first to private rights. ("2014 NRA-ILA Firearms Fact Card")” So Americans have the right to bear arms. Violence is bad in the United States, and guns are being targeted as the problem, however criminals kill people not guns. If a person wanted to kill someone they would find another way to do it. The problem is not the guns it is the criminals. Banning far arms would not stop violence; banning firearms would increase