Right To Bear Arms Pros And Cons

United States is a country that has problems with gun control, and this issue has many debates between whether or not people should be allowed to carry a gun on them. This free county not only for speech and religion, but also allows people to have the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment of the United States was written by our Founding Fathers,“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” (Government). The main purpose of the Second Amendment when our Founding Fathers wrote this amendment was to help the American citizens to defend themselves from the government at that time, and other countries from invading their properties. However,

The article “Gun Control Laws: Should the United States adopt stronger gun control laws?” focuses on the debate on passing stricter gun control laws. For example, supporters believe that gun control laws will decrease mass shootings and gun violence. Additionally, adopting these laws does not violate the Second Amendment, and as a result it does not limit the government from the use of fire arms when it is necessary. However, opponents argue that the gun control laws will not stop gun violence. The problem is the people holding the gun and not the gun itself. Furthermore, opponents gathered that stronger gun control laws do violate the Second Amendment. The author illustrates the debate on whether the United States should or should not adopt stronger gun control laws.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, Second Amendment of the Declaration of Independence. While some people see this Amendment as a right to have guns, others think that this right is limited by the “a well-regulated militia” part of the Amendment. The controversial dispute between opponents and supporters of gun rights seems to be a non-ending situation, both sides of the political spectrum are trying to influence public opinion through media campaigns. The right of the people to own arms has been discussed, particularly by the public more than by the tribunal. The Supreme Court, in June 2008, by a vote of 5–4, decided that Americans

In 2015, on an average day in America, thirty-six Americans were killed by guns, excluding suicides. How many of those deaths would have been prevented if there were stricter gun laws? How many parents would have lived to see their babies grow up? How many children would have lived to graduate, or get married? Although many Americans believe that gun control takes away their second amendment right it actually increases every citizen’s safety by the use of extensive background checking, checking medical records, and restricting gun distributors.

The second amendment of the constitution 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.” (Cornell Law) For over fifty years, the amendment has been interpreted to the courts that people individually do not have the right to own gun, but rather that this right is to be regulated by legislatives on the federal,

The second amendment of the United States reads, “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” (Constitution). This has started a huge debate on whether or not this should be true. On one hand people believe that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" make an individual right in constitution. Under this theory the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. Gun control is considered unconstitutional by many American citizens, as it should be. Gun control is laws or

The 2nd Amendment clearly states that everyone has the right to own guns and that right should not be infringed upon. Some people believe that we should take the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution because of the recent shootings within schools across the country. We believe that it is important for people to be able to own guns and protect themselves from criminals. Even if guns were banned from being used by civilians, criminals would still be able to get them and use them in a harmful way. We believe that while guns have been used in harmful ways towards other human beings, they are necessary for the protection of citizens. A way to regulate guns would be to decide what guns specifically could be used (such as smaller handguns), who could

While Americans were contemplating gun control proposals in the wake of mass shootings at a Colorado School, another gunman massacred 50 people in a club in Orlando. This incident brought heated political exchanges between President Obama and Trump, the Republican presidential candidate. It is estimated that in 2015 alone, there were more than 351 mass shootings in the United States. This is a worrying trend that should be reversed as soon as possible. Surprisingly, the trend has divided Americans into two groups. On one extreme end, there are those Americans who believe that the government should enforce gun control. On the other end, some Americans insist that stricter gun controls will not help in the fight against killings. In this light, this paper will try to provide a detailed analysis of the gun control debate while highlighting the various points made by the proponents and opponents of the gun control. The essay posits that gun control is counterproductive.

The 2nd amendment in the constitution says; 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. And people often debate about what this means. I believe that the 2nd amendment of the constitution is stating that people have the right to bear arms, providing they are part of the militia. I think this for 3 reasons, the first reason being the definition of the word militia, the second reason is what we use our militia for in the U.S, and the third is when we would need a militia at this point in time.

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding gun control whether it be the right wing Conservatives wishing for very little if any gun control, or the left wing Liberal wishing for very strict and predominant gun control. This topic is widely debated between many different people over many different countries. However, in America this topic is taken to new heights when you take into account the second amendment and what this amendment means to some people. 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.” This singular phrase has been debated thousands of times. Some believe that when it says Militia it vehemently

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.” Militia is defined: “as a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency.” When the constitution, obviously the framers didn’t foresee such a violent future and abuse of firearms. If they could have, they might of detailed this amendment a bit more specifically so there was no misunderstanding of the intentions. I think there is confusion with the message that gun control activists are trying to get across. We are not trying to strip Americans of their rights to “bear arms” but put into effect stricter regulations to obtain a gun and on the types of guns citizens should be able to own. Every individual has a right to own a gun but just because you can legally own a gun doesn’t automatically mean you have a right to go around shooting people. In 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court said that we have a constitutional right to possess firearms for self-defense, at least within

Having looked at the basic outline of why stricter gun control is being advocated for by lawmakers, several statistics need to be explained. In 2012, out of all homicides in the United States, 60% were committed by firearm; compared to 10% in the U.K., and 18.2% in Australia. This statistic is shocking, and it gives advocates for gun control a reason to be extremely anxious for reform. As well as the number of murders committed with guns per capita in the U.S. in 2012 being almost 30 times more than the U.K, there have been about 1.4 million gun deaths in the U.S. between 1968 and 2011. That number surpasses the amount of deaths accounted for in all wars that the U.S. has ever been involved in, from the War of Independence to Iraq.

The controversy with the Second Amendment is that it does not clarify who “the people” are. Therefore, leaving room for legislative bodies and courts to interpret and influence their decision on how laws become introduce and enforced. Therefore, if we let an individual interpret the Second Amendment we will get different opinions. For instance, we have the gun control activist, that believe that since there is not a militia, no individual should possess firearms.The activist back up their claims by stating that the possession of weapons make the country unsafe and puts children at risk children at risk of finding the weapon and accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. They also believe that only the police or government officials should have the right to carry weapons and that by banning guns it would minimizes the gang related shootings that take the lives of many innocent bystanders every day. On the other hand, we have the anti-gun control activists arguing that banning guns will not reduce crime instead it would leave law abiding citizens vulnerable to armed criminals. For instance, they mention that if convicted felons manage to get their hands on a weapon now, who says that by banning them is going to stop them from doing

Every year thousands of people die by gunfire. Thousands of families lose loved-ones because of senseless crimes in which guns are used. Many political figures and innocent civilians debate the issue of gun-control.The current gun laws range from being able to purchase and keep a gun with no provisions, or with provisions. (NRA-ILA) People on the pro gun regulation side argue that less guns means less gun violence. While people on the no gun regulation side argue that guns do not kill people, people kill people. Both are fair arguments. But, without question, The United States Federal Government should enact stricter gun laws because of the gun-related suicides, the evidence of a decrease in gun violence when laws are put into place, and the fact that guns are rarely used for self-defense.

Gun violence cost each person in the United States roughly $564 and the US government $5.5 billion in lost tax revenue. A woman’s risk of being murdered increases 500% if a gun is present during a domestic dispute. 89% of unintentional shooting deaths of children occur in the home - and most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parents absence. Gun control laws should be passed in the US because Guns are rarely used in self defense, more gun control leads to fewer suicides, and gun control laws would reduce gun deaths.