Guns Are A Controversial Topic

In the article “A peaceful Woman Explains Why She Carriers a Gun,” the author Linda M. Hasselstrom has a credible argument for carrying a gun. Hasselstrom has a solid ethical appeal and her argument had logic based on her many dangerous personal experiences. Although her article is credible, she uses many fallacies to make it seem that if women have a gun they can protect themselves from men.

In Sarah Vowell’s essay she talks about her life and the role her father and guns have played in it. Being a gunsmith, her father’s life revolves around guns and he loves it. This is not a view shared by his daughter who finds that guns are constantly getting in her space. Due to this overabundance of guns and gun-loving ideas in the household and her father trying to force his own republican opinion on her, Sarah has developed a strong distaste for guns.

Ivins starts out her essay by stating that she is not anti-gun. This benefits her because it keeps those that are pro-gun from automatically thinking she is some radical pacifist. She carries on to explain how the use of knives "...

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”.1 It is important to understand that the Second Amendment was created in order to allow the American people to form militias in response to a tyrannical government attempting to suppress the American way of life. In order for Americans to form militias, they must uphold their freedom to bear arms as a

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 Also, the provision is outdated and no longer coincides with the times.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

Now lets ask ourselves, what does the second amendment mean? Who gets to keep and bear arms? One side focuses on the phrase “A well-regulated militia” to argue that only people who are in a militia such as the National Guard have the right to bear arms. The other side focuses on the phrase “The right of the people” to argue that law-abiding citizens, whether or not they are in a militia have the right to bear arms. Who’s correct? For further insight, the wisdom and prudence of our founding fathers proves to be instructive, as they lived in this influential time. In the Federal Farmer number 28, Richard Henry Lee wrote, “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves.” In congruence with Richard’s thinking Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison saying, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve

     This conclusion, although widespread, is hardly valid. In the time of our fore-fathers, bearing arms was not only fully acceptable, but was ultimately necessary for the protection of the livelihood of the individual and for the preservation and prosperity of the nation. A nation of citizens with the right to bear arms demands the respect of their government and has the capacity to influence their own leadership; an unarmed population lives at the mercy of their administration. It is hardly conceivable that the drafters of the Constitution would incorporate a statement limiting the right to keep and bear arms to members of a state militia. To include this condition would ultimately have removed from practice the very entity that freed this country from oppression and gained us our independence: the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The second amendment was not intended only to grant a privilege to a group, but to preserve the right of the individual.

individuals with firearms as weapons. A line has been drawn in the sands of society, but clearly

From the founding of our country up until modern times there has been a separation on the beliefs of civilians owning guns. But gun control simply put, is a waste of time. It is highly ineffective in areas that gun control has been enacted in the United States. As well as “Gun Free Zones” being centralized high-target opportunities. (Small areas densely occupied by unarmed and defenseless citizens.) Thus allowing (in the rare instances it occurs like Newtown, Aurora, and Virginia Tech) a shooter a densely filled area of unarmed people to fire upon, causing mass causalities. In such areas the only protection they have are, Police/EMS, or an illegally armed citizen to defend them in case of

Does the Second Amendment protect the right to own and operate heavy and destructive military-grade firearm to civilians while openly carrying them around in the public, but that doesn't answer the question nor does it give a descriptive meaning to what it means. It's an ungrammatical sentence, it refers to militias that don't even exist anymore and has been the subject of an intense controversy. The Second Amendment has two parts, the first part talking about state militias saying that militias are a necessary part of national defense and the second part deals with the right to “bear arms”(Gun Control), the question of how the two relate is something that is still debated.

Many people believe that the Second Amendment means that only the military should have the right to carry guns. They believe that “A well-regulated militia” is referring to trained soldiers, when in fact, the Second

Her world came to a crash the day she was shot, point-blank, in front of a grocery store. With all of this gun violence going on recently the Senate has been flooded with gun-control legislation. Some of it is radical but the majority of the laws are no-brainers, like the background check law struck down by the senate earlier in the congressional session. The law required that background checks be given before the purchase of a firearm, and was supported by “Ninety per cent of Americans,” and “eighty-five per cent of gun owners” (Talbot, 2014). Interest groups like the NRA are scaring our legislators into making decisions that do not reflect the wishes of the population as a whole.

(Ivins 324) She also add that, “this is no longer a frontier nation in which people hunt their own food.” This is clearly ridiculous claim. Many people still hunt and rely on hunting to get meat. I personally know several people who hunt, some because it is a more affordable way to get meat for their families. I have a friend whose husband spends a lot of his time hunting and he even gives away a majority of his meat to people who are less fortunate. She also claims that all guns do is kill. (Ivins 324) This is also false, they can be used recreationally at shooting ranges. One of my favorite memories with my father is when he took my brother and me to a shooting range when we were teenagers. He had an old single shot pistol and he taught us how to shoot and handle a gun. My grandfather had a huge collection of antique guns all throughout his house. As children my brother and I always loved looking at his collection and it was something he took great pride in. Guns are not just for killing they can be used for defense and protection as well as a way for people to bond over a shared interest and they can be used for hunting and even for charity. Her final point is that England has effectively banned guns in their country and people there are fine. (Ivins 324) While it is true that England has less gun violence since banning guns they have not seen any significant decline in murder

Their opinion contradicts the opinion of some in saying that the right to have a weapon makes a society free.

One negative view toward guns is that they kill people. People kill people. The person behind the gun is the killer. Using this as an argument against gun is the worst way someone can approach it. When someone is killed by a drunk driver do people think that the car is responsible for killing? No, they obviously blame the drunk driver and say nothing about the vehicle used in the incident. It should be the same way with guns. People should not turn on the guns that they use for protection because there are people that misuse guns. The problem is the way guns are viewed. Keith Olberman states, “Guns are evil and the NRA is evil.” The article says, “30,000 Americans are killed by guns each year (Stossel).” Anyone can see in the statement it says “killed by guns.” It should say the guns are used. When it is stated like that it makes it seem like guns are the problem. When most of the time it is the people. In most of the big shootings the people behind them usually have some problem or have been psychologically damaged. One example is the Aurora movie theater shooting just a year ago. James Holmes, the shooter, showed signs before the shooting that he had problems. He was described as bipolar and a shy