Oracle Transcript

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

It appears as though the repetitive and unfortunate tragedies of mass shootings have become incorporated into the everyday life of American culture. We are forced to live in a heightened degree of fear, skepticism, and hesitation concerning our public safety. This phenomenon could reasonably occur in response to the vast ineffectiveness of the country’s current gun laws. Time after time similar misfortunes arise, yet few major changes are implemented to prevent them from reoccurring in the future. We cannot let this trend continue any further. Though some claim that increased gun control is useless and infringes upon the Second Amendment, it limits civilians’ weapons grade, obstructs those deemed unfit to wield such lethal weapons, and insures a greater level of security, thus it should be executed.

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

Imagine going to school where instead of worrying about a grade you got on a test, you have to worry about your school being the next victim of a mass shooting. 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” (United States Constitution), and yet instead of some people using their guns for self defense, they use it for mass shootings. Some argue that we already have gun control laws that don’t work, but others say if we had better gun laws than it would work. The debate on gun control started in November 22, 1963, when evidence in the assassination of president John F. Kennedy increased public awareness

"You can 't move past it. You can 't sweep it under the rug," expresses a surviving Sandy Hook School teacher. "We have to honor the horror by paying tribute to what happened, what people went through and what it was like for everyone" (Blickley, 2016). The brutal murder of twenty beautiful children and seven brave adults at Sandy Hook elementary school was a tragic event that shook, not only, Newtown, Connecticut, but the whole nation to its very core. However, this grievous crisis was not the first of its kind; since 1999, there have been over 130 shootings at schools. Moreover, the last thirty years, there have been an additional sixty-two mass shootings (each leaving at least four dead). This leaves no room to question the necessity for gun rights reform (as cited in Stinebrickner, pg. 67 CITE). Therefore, America published an editorial titled "Repeal the Second Amendment." The primary purpose of this article is to call for an examination of the implications, advantages, and (potential) consequences associated with the second amendment. Based off of increased mass shootings, extensive research, and keen observation of how other countries have managed the gun crisis, "Repeal the Second Amendement" determines there ought to be increased gun restrictions.

Throughout the course of American politics, superstar senators have risen from the frameworks of capitol buildings on federal, state, and local levels. Some were ruthlessly manipulative in their desire to achieve success, choosing to push their own agenda for the sake of a spot in history. Others served a more earnest cause, putting their country before their party. From the founding fathers to post World War II America, senators of the extremely partisan kind worked in Washington, these men certainly were not the last of the “cut throat” politicians, their actions setting a precedent for future men and women in their partisan agenda. However, noble men who worked endlessly for the prosperity, safety, and unity of America are often swept

As today's society struggles with the continuous problems surrounding gun violence, many Americans are questioning whether or not our Second Amendment is applicable to our society as of today. Undeniably, our circumstances as a nation in the United states differs dramatically from when The Constitution adopted the Second Amendment in 1791. This document 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." At this time our founding fathers had no idea of the challenges we would currently face as a nation and recently the United States recorded its deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S history. Proving that the Second Amendment has not been applicable with today's society, it being outdated, the frequent tragedies through gun violence, and the lack of regulations currently being displayed.

“The boundaries of the Second Amendment do not coincide with the boundaries of gun control” (Blocher and Miller, 2016, p.296). Guns and the idea of gun control have been a high valued topic, between the Federal Government and state governments since the beginning of the 20th century. How strictly guns should be regulated is a common topic between the Federal Government and state governments, especially with the increase in mass shootings over the years. Although there are regulations set by the Federal Government, most of the time, it falls on state governments to mandate guns because it is easier for each state to determine what is best for it and the people that live there. State governments are more closely related to the people in

“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

Although America has seen a significant increase in mass shootings over the years, it is best that gun laws should not be amended. Even though guns are dangerous when they are placed in the wrong hands, it is best that our gun laws should not be infringed, causing Americas Second Amendment of the Constitution to be messed with. The Second Amendment was added to our Constitution because the founders believed in the private ownership of guns was necessary for protection of our liberties. In addition taking away guns would punish our honest citizens, and if they were outlawed, criminals would still find ways to arm themselves. Do we really feel that taking away guns all together, would prevent these mishaps? When

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

“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it” said Thomas Jefferson (insert citation). What would happen to American Citizens if there safety and protection was completely in the hands of Uncle Sam? How could a person live without fear? Gun control has been an issue that has concerned the United States for many years. While the legalizing of gun control specifically about high capacity magazines and assault weapons has only been a forethought, never passing all the way through lawmakers, it is a thought that many people have had, and is definitely a thought people are having as mass shootings are becoming more common. Advocates for these set of laws feel that guns are a threat to society and should be outlawed. There are many important arguments about whether or not guns are an inhumane part of American culture. The first of these is that many people are not in the correct state of mind to make a decision that can end lives. Another argument is that guns should be used to build up our country, to protect it, not to break it down. The third argument against gun control is that the use of guns has become outdated in the protection that our local law enforcement can provide. High capacity ammunition clips and assault weapons should be legal in the United

In this passage, Thomas P. states that many people argue that guns are the cause of the nearly 22% increase in the homicide rate between 2015 and 2016. While guns are a problem, giving restrictions may not be the solution. Most criminals would still be able to obtain these weapons illegally, leaving people that abide by the law without them for self protection. Actually, in the passage he says most gun crimes are performed with weapons that are already illegally possessed. Taking away a person’s right to own their own firearms also violates the second amendment, which states the right of the people to bear arms. That amendment was put in place so that civilians could overthrow an unjust government if ever put in that situation.

“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,” many will recognize this as the 2nd second, however, few will know the true purpose for why it was written. The intent of the amendment was to allow the general populace to own personal firearms without restriction, so that, in the case of a government takeover or attack on their well being, they would be able to defend themselves. Regrettably, this has largely been forgotten. A vast majority of the left now believes that the 2nd amendment is just an excuse for conservatives to play with dangerous toys. They look at all of the gun violence and think that the cause is the right to own firearms, so their solution is to either restrict it or repeal it all together. Countries such as Australia, Japan, and England give them their reasoning for strict gun control. Advocates conclude that if America implements the same harsh gun regulations of these countries, then our gun violence rates will reflect theirs. This is not the case at all, but it makes sense, if it works there, then why wouldn’t it work here?

Everyone has a different opinion about the issue and what should be done to solve the problem, no matter what is done the main question is would restricting the ownership of firearms be a violation of our 2nd Amendment? Our rights are in place to protect our freedoms, but when is it permissible to infringe upon those rights for the protection of the common good? The standard which is in place simply states, that your rights are in place until exercising your rights violates other rights or places others in danger. Meaning that I have the freedom of speech but that does not allow me to yell fire in a movie theater because it would endanger the common good. So now that we understand that one person’s freedoms stop where another’s starts, the question is does owning a gun infringe upon other’s rights?