Persuasive Essay On The Second Amendment

The right to bear arms is your second amendment right, this gives opportunities for mentally insane people to hold weapons and shoot without discretion. I see that the second amendment was placed by our forefathers as a means to protect ourselves, yet most of the people with weapons want to fire it at a gun range, so why doesn't the government keep these guns in safe location such as gun ranges and charge people to shoot with these guns. Nowadays these weapons given through our rights have caused many mass shootings even recently the tragedy that took place in Las Vegas where a male shot killed and injured hundreds of people through the use of his multiple weapons in his hotel room on the 32nd floor. This only the most recent one, there have been many more, there is no limit to what these weapons can kill, from non-human animals to human children to adults. One a weapon is shot at a person they will either die or have a serious injury, if weapon is shot at the wrong place it can even paralyze a person limiting their movements later on in their lives. Some states have placed limits and have somewhat taken initiative to stop these lunatics from getting weapons by lengthening the background test, making taking the background tesst hard and only choosing those who are a good fit to be able to carry a weapon that can take someone's life away in the the matter of seconds.

“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. Throughout history, this sentence of twenty seven words has caused an intense debate. The polemic is that some people claim that a gun control policy is unconstitutional, while others disagree and even say it is necessary in order to reduce crime. Now, what does gun control mean? If it means to analyze who is responsible enough to own a gun by a “Universal Background Check”; that sounds right to everyone. But in the article “What Are Obama’s Gun Control Proposals? An Easy Guide” published in the National Journal by Matt Vasilogambros. The author states that the “gun-control

Guns, used for a wide variety of things, such as hunting, sports, and defense. Though destructive, guns have their uses. But what allows citizens to own guns in the U.S.? The answer to that question is the 2nd amendment. The amendment states that citizens can bear guns, and that a free state should have a good militia. At the end of the amendment, the amendment states that it should not be infringed. Back in 2012 Obama was claimed to try to take away guns. Should guns be taken away from U.S. citizens, or even the whole second amendment? Well, the second amendment should not be taken away, because guns provide defense against attackers, state militias provide more safety, and the amendment itself says it should not

More than than 270,000 troops are being denied their gun rights,mainly from the thoughts of those who are against the 2nd Amement. It really is common in the United States. And they also are very powerful and one shot can change your life for the worst, if used incorrectly. And that shot can or even could killed somebody. And that what makes them deadly. Guns are essiential to the United States of America because guns give us protection, and they are used for hunting and other recreational activities, and they really aren’t the biggest problem to the country.

All U.S citizens have First Amendment rights. They all have the right of freedom of speech, religion, press, petition, and assembly. Freedom of Religion enforces the separation of church and state. Freedom of Speech allows people to express themselves without the interference or regulation by the government. Freedom of the Press allows people to express themselves through dissemination and publication. Freedom to Assemble allows individuals to get together for lawful and peaceful purposes. Freedom to Petition give people the right to ask government to correct a problem. Even though there might be certain hate groups, protesters, or discriminators, they can also be protected by their rights only if it doesn't interfere with other people's rights or gets those rights taken away. I believe that all U.S citizens should be able to practice any right they choose to.

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

How can the original writing and intent of the second amendment, be relevant in our society today?

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.

The U.S constitution is in place to protect citizens rights from the government. It plays as a check in balance in powers amongst the most powerful. But why is that even with the constitution in place to protect us, we find certain discrepancies which result in Supreme Court cases or Landmark cases. One of the most disputable amendments in our constituting governmental platform is, to much surprise, the 2nd amendment. In my opinion, its due to its broadness in explanation. According to constitutioncenter, the 2nd amendment Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791, and its states as followed, “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.” As you can see, its brief in what its prerogative is, but not specific on situational based questions. We as humans want to know the “what ifs” in any situation especially when something isn’t addressed. This results in cases that end up in the Supreme court. One of the most notable cases regarding the 2nd amendment, was District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

Most people would link violence and crime problems with gun control in America. The debate that Americans face today is the freedom the Second Amendment gives citizens and whether or not the country should repeal it. While some people feel that repealing it should solve the problem, others believe that it is one of the most important basic freedoms we have as Americans. Federal gun control laws are unconstitutional, and I believe the Second Amendment is both an individual and state right.

“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.

The First Amendment one that is watered down, serves as example of the freedom we as Americans have. It is best known as the amendment that lets us say what we want when we want. There is more to it that gets overlooked. It blocks government from establishing a theocracy, grants the people the right to peacefully assemble and protest the government for a redress of grievances. Our press is independent and is given freedom to publish at will. Our freedoms embolden us to speak out and organize for progress and against society's wrongs. Sometimes groups will organize to speak out but will sink to extreme measures as a means of expression. The first amendment has seen challenges in recent months. “Donald Trump referred to the press, and I'm quoting his exact words, as "dishonest, disgusting, and scum."Just ten days ago, you might have heard in a press conference, President Donald Trump said that the "press is out of control."(Chemerinsky, 553). To clashes between different ideologies on college campuses with some initiating riots. The first amendment grants many freedoms, however it does not grant protection from consequence.

Didn't that happen after the American government took the Lokota's guns from them after promising them no harm would come to them? Of course in more modern times there was Waco, where our government bombed a religious community and ultimately killed 82 of its members, including women and children ..... Our government is not to be trusted and that is the very reason our founding fathers wrote the 2nd amendment so "We the People" can keep a check and balance on "We the People's" government

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

"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." The second amendment has been the subject to much political disagreements and controversy. It was written and ratified in December 1791 (Brooks “The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms”). There are many who want to repeal “the right to bear arms” because they feel they feel that is why criminals get a hold of weapons so easily. Others say that citizens should have access to their own weapons and protection. Even more political controversy has arisen due to the mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas, Nevada last week-end leaving more wanting to revoke the second amendment. In spite of this, I have been brought to the conclusion that the second amendment should not be redacted because, some rely on hunting as an income, citizens have a right to defend themselves, and citizens have a right to defend their freedom.