The Debate Over Open Carry Of Handguns

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

Death, violence, individual rights, crime, and cost are many words that arise when researching the controversial topic of gun control. This issue revolves around the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and 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.” Is there a black and white answer or is there a need to find a middle ground? The foundational right must be preserved for an individual to own a gun. However, basic safety measures need to be in place for added protection and security of all Americans. To explore why this balance is the best option, it is necessary to look further into the

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.

“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.

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.

The opposite side of this debate consists of those who claim that the amendment guarantees some sort of individual right to arms. This view comes from the literal wording of the Second Amendment, which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Along with this argument, the NRA and other groups in opposition of gun control argue that the first, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments are all constructed to refer to the citizens as individuals and not as a collective state. These gun advocates feel that if one is to give a rational interpretation of the collective view to the constitution, then one would have to assume that the Framers referred to the individuals in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments; to the states in the second amendment, and then separated the states and the people in the tenth amendment, although they feel that this was inconsistent with the wording of the second amendment (5).

The debate over stricter gun laws has been ongoing in the United States for quite some time now. Individuals who oppose stricter gun control laws argue that the second amendment to the constitution of the United States constitute part of the bill of rights that protect the right of American citizens to bear arms, and any attempt to set up laws for gun control will be a direct violation of this (Hofstadter 10). They argue that the primary purpose of the amendment was to ensure that American Citizens had the capability to protect themselves against criminal activities and defend the country against external aggression. From a personal perspective, the recent surge in instances of gun violence in the United States of America indicates that stricter gun control laws are necessary for the safety of the American citizenry. Thus, this paper is going to focus on highlighting the benefits of more stringent gun control laws and why members of the public should support it.

“Americans are deeply divided over the Second Amendment. Some passionately assert that the Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns. Others, that it does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias” (Cornell). The Second Amendment of the constitution gives citizens the right to bear arms, and is therefore one of the most important laws of the nation. This amendment holds an important value to our nation because, it prevents tyranny but, it also protects, spreads, and contributes to the causes of human rights. Over the past years there’s been controversy among the people and the true meaning of the Second Amendment. The understanding of the Second Amendment was to be a civic right in which who keep and bear arms will need to meet a legal obligation of participating in a well-regulated militia (Cornell 2). The definition for a well-regulated militia means to provide help in which involves carrying out the laws of the union, end rebellions against the government and protect against invasions. Thus, the Second Amendment shaped the country in which we live today. This country is bound on civil rights and individual freedom. In the book A Well Regulated Militia by Saul Cornell the debates in 1780-1850 took part into shaping what it will become the Second Amendment. This is because gun ownership will be seen as a civic obligation. Gun ownership is a civic obligation because it brings the need for protecting the nation. Shay’s rebellion was one of the

One of the most controversial topics in American society today is gun control. This issue has many people debating how America should perceive the second amendment. Many view the second amendment as outdated, irrelevant, or possibly dangerous in today’s society. Others believe the founding fathers’ beliefs and reasons for including the right to bear arms are often misinterpreted resulting in a fight to protect its place in the Bill of Rights. The pushers for more gun laws and the NRA are in unending debate on whether or not the second amendment continues to be relevant today. In order to understand each side’s perspective, one must know the history of the second amendment, its evolution, and how it relates to today’s society.

The Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution is fiercely debated and interpreted differently among American citizens and argued with between the Legislative and Judicial branches of our government. “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,” (Brooks). Because of the Second Amendment, citizens have the right to possess firearms and use them for protection. When researching the origin of the Second Amendment, its modern applications, and its relevance in today’s society, one can determine the Second Amendment’s current implications on today’s society.

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 term “gun control” deals with the regulation of the selling, purchasing, and using of firearms in America. The availability of firearms to the public has been causing serious debates around the country because of the diversity in the people’s cultures, judgment, and religions. Many people thought the provision set by the Second Amendment when it was ratified can perfectly be applied in the society today. However, the understanding of people about the Second Amendment and how they interpret it change over time. They cannot agree with each other about the meaning of the historical evidence (Karlan, 2013). Research and polls found that people in the rural areas tend to support the right of gun owners while those in urban areas encourage gun control. Due

Gun control in the United States is a very controversial topic in today’s political society, leaving the nation divided into two sides with two strongly opinionated beliefs. This all started with the increase in the amount of mass shootings and an overall increase in gun violence. The two sides consist of the liberal point of view and the conservative point of view. The liberals believe that the availability of firearms to the people in the country is a major issue, and that the U.S. government is at fault for the mass shootings due to the lenient regulations on guns. In retaliation, the conservatives argue that having a gun is a God given right, that the Second Amendment of The Constitution. Although the availability of guns is seen to be

Many Americans tend to be on opposing sides when dealing with such a controversial issue such as gun control. A more specific category of such a broad topic as gun control is the practice that some Americans participate in, called concealed carry. Concealed carry is the practice of carrying a weapon, typically a handgun, on one’s body that is hidden from the public. This political issue hits many different institutions within America, such as many special interest groups, the constitution and Judicial branch of the government, and also the principle of Federalism.

America is the most well armed nation in the world, with American citizens owning about 270 million of the world’s 875 million firearms (Marshall). Indeed, this is more than a quarter of the world’s registered firearms. The reason why Americans own so many guns is because of the Second Amendment, which 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.” (Rauch) This amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to have firearms. Since this amendment is relatively vague, it is up for interpretation, and is often used by gun advocates to argue for lenient gun laws. Hence, gun control is a frequently discussed controversial topic in