More Guns, More Violence

The following critical analysis of the Essay, “The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms” by Lee Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, William Van Alstyne, is intended to highlight a few of the different short-comings and argumentative fallacies presented by even the most legally astute individuals who oppose forms of gun control. While the author does present a multi-facet and well-orchestrated presentation of fact and principle, there are two essential claims being asserted on his part. The author’s intent is to demonstrate the importance of gun right protection and to justify the NRA’s practices in the name of doing so. In my dissection of the essay, I intend to demonstrate the argumentative fallacies and examine the ways in which the NRA is generally harmful to the progression of gun control reform, and therefore public safety in the United

The second amendment grants the right to bear arms for all citizens of the United States of America. Recently though, this amendment has come into question because of how people are abusing the rights given to us only to protect us. Instead of using the weapons to help protect America, recently many events have taken place where the right to bear arm has caused more harm than protection. Millions of people have lost their lives because of the lack of strict gun laws. Many of those people are innocent kids, kids who had so much potential all taken away from a gun. The Washington Post, recently posted an opinion piece by Adam Ross called “I’ve had guns pointed at me, I’m glad I didn’t have one.” In the article, Ross relates his personal experience

The right to bear arms is a birth given right to all Americans by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment has become controversial recently due to the technological advancement of firearms. Modern firearms are capable of both high rates of fire and greater capacities of ammunition, unlike the single shot muskets that were available at the time of the Second Amendment’s conception. American liberals view these improvements in firearms as dangerous and unnecessary. However, no matter how dangerous firearms may be, the Second Amendment is a necessity for one factor alone: protection from one’s own government and it must be upheld. The Second Amendment provides a physical tool for Americans to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, it allows Americans to form militias against a tyrannical government, and it allows Americans to maintain comparable firearms of the U.S. government in order to prevent the potential loss of American freedoms in the future.

Each person has their own idea of what our founding fathers meant when they put this in our constitution. Some people use guns as a hunting sport or for food. But then there are the ones who want to cause harm to each other. I still remember the morning of December 11, 2012. The day the Clackamas Town Center shooting occurred. A man entered a busy mall, killed 2 people and seriously injured another. He ended up shooting himself after causing all that fear and pain to the shoppers. My family and I had planned to visit the mall that day to take my relatives who came to visit from California, but we overslept. We heard the news on the radio on our way there and we turned around knowing we could have been there. The culprit stole an AR-15 from

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 first speaker, Dr. Khal Schneider, addresses the words behind the 2nd amendment. He provides us with a historical background around the formation of the amendment and further describes the works that are within this amendment. He highlights words such as “Militia”, “necessary”, “arms”, and “infringed”. He describes how these words can be interpreted differently, thus making it hard to actually interpret the amendment for what it actually means. For instance, he draws attention to the word “arms” and describes the evolution. He illustrates that his amendment must be looked at in respects to the century it was written in. He then describes the difference between “arms’ within both centuries. He draws attention to the increase

“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.

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which 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”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

Eighty-nine people depart from this earth due to gun violence in the US every day. From school children, to victims of domestic violence, to people going about their daily lives, this status quo is unacceptable. On Tuesday January 5th, 2016 President Obama announced that he would send proposals on reducing gun violence in America to Congress. His spokesman, Jay Carney, mentioned that this is “a complex problem that will require a complex solution.” The ability to own a gun is considered by some a birthright of Americans. However, with crime rates involving handguns rising each day it has become quite clear. Handgun laws must become stricter in order to reduce homicide and crime. The question is, “which solution in most effective in decreasing gun violence?” Gun control is a major conflict that is constantly reoccurring and the US is seemingly divided over it.

An ongoing and highly debated social problem that continues to grow in our society today is the gun control epidemic. Gun violence in the United States is a national epidemic. Many people take advantage of guns using and manipulating the tool with hardly any thought. Countless lives have been lost due to fact that people have been able to obtain firearms legally or illegally and have taken the notion to be judge, jury and executioner in holding ones live in their hands. This is a common issue that will continue if action is not taken as a nation to try and stop it. Gun violence can lead many citizens to believe that no place is deemed safe anymore and recent tragedies that have taken place in United States holds up that statement. In

Since then the argument is what the intent and meaning of the amendment is. The wording of the amendment is a major cause in this controversy. For example the beginning phrase "A well regulated Militia,". Those who take the government side, such as originalists or textualists, think the amendment gives each state the right to have a militia that can provide protection against unnatural forces.Originalists and texualists take the meaning of the phrase as is and convey what is written as the law. It is noted that "well regulated militia" clause means the right to bear arms should only be given under the supervision of militia or millitary. This interpretation leads to believe this allows the official millitary to carry guns legally, and say the federal government cannot get rid of state militias.However, the opposing viewers believe the amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns to protect themselves from danger. The individualists believe the militia clause has no connection and was never meant to restrict people from the right of owning a gun. They think of the constitution as a "living constitution" as discussed in class. It is said that the amendment should be put into the context of today's living and what the words mean in the sentence mean

A well-regulated militia necessary of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It isn't much, but the power in these words is what keeps this country free. It's what keeps the people in this country safe. Everyone has their own opinion on the subject, but the facts show that the right to bear arms benefits this country more than it hurts.

The continuing Mass Shootings in the United States has caused the gun control debate to intensify. While anti-gun control advocates say the Second Amendment guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, the pro-gun control group reads the Second Amendment as a collective right to bear arms; meaning organized militia are the only ones with that right. This essay will analyse the effectiveness of several different articles which present arguments for and against gun control.

In 2016, Greg Jones wrote an article titled “The Real Reason Americans Oppose Gun Control.” In the article, Jones informs the audience why Americans refuse to give up their Second Amendment rights to our tyrannical government. In the article, Jones adds explanation to three main reasons why Americans will not give up their Second Amendment rights. First, Jones says that “The Crazies Get Guns, But Not Us,” Jones is implying that even if the government would bad guns, criminals will still have access. The government banned drugs, but the streets of the United States are still flooded with them. Second, Jones explains that the Second Amendment was not created by the founding fathers for just hunting purpose, but for protection against the government.

“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” (Bill of Rights). This is the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. This is a document that grants all Americans certain inalienable rights. All citizens no matter their age or standing in society have some understanding of the Bill of Rights and the freedoms that it allows. One freedom that is granted to us, the right to bear arms, has become the center of a heated issue in today’s society and many years before. The majority of citizens have felt the impacts of guns, either positive or negative, during some point of their life. It is because of the fact that guns are a part of