Reasonable Background Checks

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

People believed that “the right to bear arms is the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanction of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression”. On the opposite hand, many states at the time believed that to give the people the right to own a gun was unconstitutional because it could be a threat for the state government when everyone was allowed to own guns. Majority of states in America did not want to add the right to bear arms into their state constitution, because there was not a single legal model emerged on how to protect them in the first constitutions drafted by our Founding Fathers. The debate between gun control and non-gun control over the right to bear arms alarmed America. The gun control claimed that the right to bear arms is the basic right that people should have in order for American citizens to defense themselves and for their state.; They believed that the laws prohibiting individuals from carrying firearms only work for the benefit of criminals. On the opposite hand, anti-gun controllers believed that those gun owners should be led by gentlemen of the first fortune and character, because the society without the guidance of gentlemen, those gun controllers’ population might easily become a mob and not a well-regulated militia. After reviewing many opinions from both sides as well as the benefits and effectiveness of the rights, the convention agreed and

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 right to bear arms”, an amendment so prioritized by our founding fathers that it earned the very second spot on the list of birth rights as Americans. However, with constant tragedies striking the United States, such as massacres in public high schools and universities, mall shootings, and attempted assassinations on state representatives, it’s no wonder law makers are constantly debating the topic of gun control.

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.

America needs to institute, and initiate gun control laws throughout the entire nation. But not everybody who inhabits the United States believes in regulating arms. Those who are against establishing gun laws argue that gun control directly infringes upon their “right to bear arms” granted to them by the 2nd Amendment. Anti gun control supporters, such as the National Rifle Association, often claim that the act of regulating guns is a sufficient reason why such an Amendment was introduced in the constitution; to protect themselves from any and all forms of violation of civil liberties and freedom. Supporters of anti gun laws are unwilling to welcome any interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that do not match up “word for word,” as was written in the Bill of Rights.

​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

As it is well known gun violence is a major problem in today’s society, places like Chicago and New York City have a serious epidemic on their hands. It is not uncommon to hear about an incident where a gun was involved in these big cities on a day to day basis, but it’s not just the big cities, these type of things are happening nationwide. There has been an argument for many decades whether the cause of such violence is due to the lack of gun control laws or the restrictions put on firearms. Both sides of the isle will argue, the more liberal individual will tell you there is not enough while the conservative individual will tell you the laws put in place are too strict.

One of the most controversial issues in our society today is the topic of private gun ownership and gun control laws. This controversy has arisen mostly due to the different ways that the second constitutional amendment is interpreted. The amendment states that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Lott, 2000). On one side of the issue, there are those that believe that the amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. On the other side are those that contend that the amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.

One of the most intriguing concepts about the Constitution is that it contains "the right to bear arms". This influences many people today in thinking that it is irresponsible for the authorities to support this right as long as society has

The amount of crimes happening today will only increase with stricter gun control laws because there is a higher temptation to steal guns. An American citizen claims, “Ever since I first learned how to shoot, the issue with gun violence around the nation became clear: Guns are not the problem; people are” (Sherfenski). Police need to lock up these people committing the disastrous crimes that affect so many innocent lives. These blameless people are not prepared when they are being attacked, and that is because most shootings tend to happen in areas where guns are controlled. The former United States Secretary of Education, William Bennett, explains the reason that criminals decide to go to places that have controlled gun laws is because: “These murderers, while deranged and deeply disturbed, are not dumb. They show up to schools, universities, malls and public places where their victims cannot shoot back” (Bennett). Even if guns are controlled in public places including malls and schools, where there are uncontrolled shootings, why would it make a difference if they were controlled everywhere? It would not make a difference whatsoever because these crimes are done out of pure, revolting pleasure. Committing a crime is one thing, but taking away a right that was given to Americans in the 1790s is a whole different story.

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.

The concept of total gun-control is viewed by many as the ban of all firearms for civilian possession, as well as severe restrictions on the certain types of firearms allowed for civilian possession. In very recent years we can examine the effects of instituting sever gun restriction in cities and the negative effects that it had. Washington DC and Chicago provide

According to The Second Amendment of the Constitution, the citizens of the United States have the right to own and bear arms, in order to form a well-regulated militia for the security of the states. This right has been discussed for decades as an important issue for the American society, and it has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century until nowadays. This right germinated with the threat to freedom that the standing army of professional soldiers brought to the Americans. Some argued that the right to bear arms is mainly concerned with self-defense while others argued that this right was implemented to avoid militia disarmament and protect the Free State. This right was

“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