Supreme Court Case: Presser V. Cruikshank

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 gun debate in the United States widely revolves around the intended interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those who support gun rights claim that the founding fathers developed and subsequently ratified the Second Amendment to guarantee the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Those who want more stringent gun laws feel that the founding fathers directed this Amendment solely to the formation of militias and are thus, outdated.

Many people are familiar with the second amendment. However, this amendment has been interpreted many different ways to fit the wants of this society. It has been used and several times by the Supreme Court and politicians. But we need to examine the second amendment closely. Many people fail to mention or read the small print. The second amendment was ratified in 1791. The second amendment states:

The role guns play in our society has long been debated on whether or not citizens have the right to own guns. There are those who believe that guns have no role in the hands of private citizens. Whereas there are those who believe that guns are the very foundation that protects our rights and liberties expressed in the Constitution. The debate is over whether or not there should be stricter laws preventing people to own guns. Though gun control and gun rights advocates share similar views on background checks and requirements, each have different views on the safety of guns and the Second Amendment meaning.

Gun control has recently brought a massive uproar to the United States after several tragedies combined mass murder with firearms. Some argue that guns are meant to be used for our protection and it takes someone to pull the trigger while others believe that guns are intended to cause serious harm or death to the intended target. The right to own a firearm stems from the second amendment of the constitution and states that a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to bear arms, shall not be infringed. The first piece of gun control legislature that was passed in the United States was in 1911 when Sullivan’s Law passed to make buying or carrying a handgun without a permit a felony

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 situation of gun control has been an issue for many years. The Second Amendment states that we as citizens have the right to bear arms and to protect ourselves. When the Constitution was first made the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the heart of the issue of gun control. It also 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". The states declared that the Amendment was only created to allow the government to bear arms. The way it reads though is that it grants the rights of all people to bear arms. There have been cases brought before the Supreme Court that has fought the right to bear arms and used the amendment to protect their rights. The government does not have the right to take away the guns from the people but is able to control the manufacturing, sales, and possessions of guns.

As a constitutional researcher, I’ve been assigned to take a closer look at the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. The Second Constitution reads “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the societies of a free state, the right of people to keep and to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Specifically, I am reviewing the portion of the amendment that speaks to the right to bear arms. I believe there are several constitutional issues with this part of the amendment that may not apply to today’s world.

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.

Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being

The debate over the right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment has been a hotly contested issue for many years in American history. The matter has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first; disputed between politicians on the liberal and conservative side along with issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage. The Supreme Court has officially defined the controversial Second Amendment by stating that states have the right to maintain a militia separate from a federally controlled army (Gale Encyclopedia, pg. 155-162). However, “Courts have consistently held that the state and federal governments may lawfully regulate the sale, transfer,

The Second Amendment to the Constitution gave United States citizens the right to bear arms. Although, the Second Amendment stated: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. However, the framers could not foresee the type of violence we have in our cities today. Innocent citizens have and are being brutally killed due to this amendment. Stricter gun control laws must be enacted to receive these types of weapons.

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

While presented through an amendment in the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms has been and continues to be a subject of controversy often due to the advancement of firearms over time, and overall vagueness of the Second Amendment. Examples of vagueness discrepancies are often found in interpreting the concept of what it entails when supporting a “well-regulated militia.” The development of firearms has also proven to be a major subject of debate as modern day weapons are significantly more advanced than what existed during the creation of the Second Amendment. Lastly, the argument of which citizens the Second Amendment should protect or not protect based on their criminal background or other factors has been an ongoing debate. These subjects do not cover all aspects of debate surrounding the Second Amendment, but have been tried in many Supreme Court cases and are subjects of controversy in modern politics.

Gun control is one of the most talked about topics in modern day America. 43 of 50 states have the right to bear arms. Most states have to background check you in order for you to purchase or sell guns. Some other states prevent carrying guns and some other ban assault rifle weapons. People who support the gun laws say that the second amendment was meant for militias and that gun restrictions have always existed. People who oppose that say that guns are needed for self-defense from people who invade houses or are actual threats. Although both of those are correct, there will always be two sides for control laws.