Essay about The Endless Gun Control Debate

Dick Heller was a police officer in the District of Columbia. The District refused Heller’s application to register a handgun he wished to keep in his home. Heller filed this lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia on grounds of the Second Amendment. Heller sought an injunction against enforcement of the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement prohibiting the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement as it prohibits the use of functional firearms within the

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 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.

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.” (Constitution, Amendment 2). There is much debate as to whether the Amendment refers to individuals having the right to bear arms or that we are entitled to have an army (militia) that is ready at moments notice to fight for our country. Both interpretations are technically correct as they are present in the Amendment. Every state had a National Guard that is readily available in case of disaster or war. This goes without mentioning our military that are also ready and waiting. Everyone shares in the protection

The Second Amendment 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”

The second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of people to bear arms and was adopted in 1791. It guarantees all Americans "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is more described as supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Former Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger writes an essay regarding “The Right To Bear Arms,” that originally appeared in the Parade Magazine in the 1990’s that questions if “The Right To Bear Arms,” is an outdated idea. Burger argument is that the gun control would lower if handguns were lowered. He also talks about the”Militias,” which is an army that protects the security of the state. Our “State Militias,” in our time, serves as a huge national defense.

In many cases, rouge individuals or gangs may use these weapons for illegal purposes that defy the rule of law. Also, the availability of these weapons make it more likely that individuals may use them for illegal purposes, which go outside of the traditional jurisdiction of a well-regulated militia. This is one aspect of the higher deaths rates in America due to gun ownership that must be challenged in terms of Constitutional legality. The primary misunderstanding and distortion of the Second Amendment is defined through the increasing absence of military oversight and state militias as a requirement for gun ownership in terms of war against the British in the late 17th century. In fact, many individuals state militias were required to own their own gun because they did not have a standing professional army to fight the British. In modern times, individuals do not need to own military-grade rifles due to the fact that the United States already possesses an adequate defense against foreign invasions. Therefore, individual gun ownership is not validated in the Second Amendment outside of a well-regulated militia, which defines the dissertation of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that has allowed greater gun ownership rights outside of lawful regulation of these

Usually when people think about guns they think about crime. But are the two really related? Do guns really lead to crime? And if they do, do laws that restrict firearm ownership and the use of guns stop the crime or protect people? These are the questions many politicians are asking themselves when creating gun control laws. The debate over gun control is nothing new. As you can see this debate still goes on today and is the cause for the beginning of gun control laws.

The second amendment says this: “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 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”. 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.

Hence, the Founding Fathers included in the Constitution the right to own firearms in 1791 (Brown). The

"I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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.” The constitution is clearly saying all citizens have the right to be able to own and carry a weapon or firearm. On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves (Cornell 1). This is showing how our founding fathers supported the right to bear arms.

Anti-Federalists, as proponents of states’ rights asserted on a dissent that no law should be passed for disarming the people, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals. One Federalist in response to the opposition asserted that “no nation could survive without an effective military, and that there was little danger to be apprehended from such a force when it was controlled by the government in which the people enjoyed full representation” (Cornell 45). Hence, the vast exposure of arms and the easiness to obtain them was jeopardy to the liberty and the safety of the new country. Once people had the right to bear and keep arms for self-defense, they were willing to fight for what they believed and their rights using arms if necessary. For example, the Whiskey Rebellion, a riot caused by the taxes imposed on whiskey and affected farmers from Pennsylvania and Kentucky, was a radical response that the population adhered against the government because they felt that that was their right. A group of farmers decided to oppose the tax imposed on whiskey by force of arms. It stopped being a simple protest and became an armed riot. An armed population out of the control of the government is a Hazard. This idea came up because they were able to possess arms and use them if

The Second Amendment to the U. S. 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" (United States of America).