The Gun Debate Over Our Second Amendment Rights

In today’s society, there is plenty to talk about. Whether it be about the President, the weather change, there is always something to talk about. One of the major issues that has been talked about for an extended period of time is gun control and the issues that follow it. There are two specific articles that were chosen today; one of which from the Chicago Sun Times website, and the other from the New York Times.

Gun control has been a long debate to determine if it’s better to have stricter access to firearms. America is one of the few countries that has gun rights embedded in their constitution. But what makes the US exceptional is that it has the right to keep and bear arms, other countries do not provide the right to have access to them, but rather, the government is allowed to regulate its use. The right to bear arms has also been the cause of growing violence and crime, at least according to anti-gun lobbyists. Citizens should be aware the dangers and harm that guns present to society. Controlling the sale of firearms can greatly decrease the number of violent crimes.

In the Constitution, the second amendment gives the American people to have the right to possess and bear arms. This amendment has been the most controversial issue since guns have been around. Issues such as gun control and gun ownership have remained a matter of debate and have been floating around in Congress. It has been rumored that Congress is forced to draft certain legislation in order to come up with a law against unlawful use of arms, and only owning them for safety purposes. When it comes to congress, Republicans and Democrats have debated their views on gun-control in the United States to best fit the overall well-being of the citizens. These different points of views have caused many discussions on how this controversial topic should be handled and whether or not it conflicts with the second amendment. Throughout this topic, Republicans and hardcore NRA supporters favor with less strict rules of gun-control while Democrats want stricter rules such as a background check for every citizen that poses a threat to either the United States of America or the average citizen. The debate on guns in America has essentially become one more distracting, off-point topic in culture wars.

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.

Gun control has been a hot topic in this country for many years. Gun control advocates will use instances such as Sandy Hook to further their agenda in removing weapons out of law-abiding American hands. On the other end of the spectrum, the gun advocates claim that any form of gun restriction goes against their constitutional rights to bear arms. In 2013, Commentary Magazine printed and article written by Benjamin Domenech discussing how gun laws will not lower mass shootings in the United States. Domench has been writing politically motived articles for almost 20 years. He has an extensive knowledge of speech writing for various political offices, such as for George W Bush (Domenech, Ben). The experience needed to write effective speeches that will target a wide audience helps him out in the article.

The United States of America is one of the very few countries in the world that allows their citizens to bear arms. The right to bear arms traces back all the way to the times of the 13 colonies. The Second Amendment has been up for many debates, especially in the recent light of mass shootings in the US. But does the entire removal and ban of firearms really work? Gun control and the second amendment has been a never ending conflict between politicians. As we look further into gun control there are more draw backs for the citizens than benefits.

Samuel Wurzelbacher, AKA Joe the Plumber, watched Richard Martinez mourn over the death of his only son who was shot in the Isla Vista rampage. He responded to Richard Martinez with an open letter on a website, Barbwire.com, saying : ‘I am sorry you lost your child. I myself have a son and daughter and the one thing I never want to go through, is what you are going through right now. But: as harsh as this sounds---your dead kids don 't trump my Constitutional rights.’ This is the type of thing that people find so terrible about the Second Amendment; because pro-gun zealots use the Second Amendment to protect their immoral actions, but this is their twisted and corrupted interpretation on the meaning and intent of the Amendment because this is in no way the original premise of the Second Amendment. The right to bear arms laid out in the Second Amendment is just because guns are weapons for self-defense. Precautions are taken on gun control, such as keeping a permanent record of all gun sales, requiring a license and certain mental certifications, and only allowing certain guns to be distributed to the public. Although some may argue that they can also be used to kill the innocent, the removal of guns from the possession of certified citizens will not stop crime, murder, or the death of innocents because guns are not the only weapons capable of these deaths.

It is in our own lives we define what we believe and what we believe in ultimately defines us. Not only do our views of ourselves matter as to who we are, what we stand for, and what we deem important, but also others’ view of our own person are sometimes just as or more important. In reference to the Second Amendment and gun control, the author, Saul Cornell, makes a case for how sometimes every group can think they are the ones in the right, but at the same time, every group can ultimately be in the wrong. It is important to think of not just right or wrong and the rights given to citizens by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but to think back deeper into history as well and what helped to found the United States of America.

The Second Amendment to 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” (Agresti, 2009, para. 2). Based on a simple reading of this, it would seem that people do have the right to own and use firearms. So why are so many people trying to ban guns? Maybe it is because they do not understand what the Second Amendment actually means. Maybe it is because the media only reports the crimes committed with guns and not the lives saved with them. What would happen to the crime rate in the United States if guns were banned altogether as other countries have done? While some people think guns should be banned, it has been

Whenever the Second Amendment is discussed, gun control is usually the focus of the discussion due to the connections that gun control and the Second Amendment have. Although the Second Amendment protects the individual right to firearms, the unlimited right is not. America was founded through guns, using their own arms to fight the British in order to gain independence, making it natural for America to be heavily focused on guns. However, many people have abused the weapon, making the controversial topic of gun control a reality.

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

Slowly and steadily stealing into our lives like a shadowy hoard from the burning bowels of the earth, the fiery debate on gun control threatens to rend our country in two. Both sides often point deadly fingers at motives and character instead of arguments. Beliefs, founded and unfounded, range widely across the board. On one side of this treacherous issue, Mark Follman penned an article for Mother Jones titled “More Guns, More Mass Shootings – Coincidence?” in an attempt to destroy the pro-gun position. However, because he based upon a flawed worldview and some faulty logic, Follman comes to incorrect conclusions.

Violence in the media could easily be watched and protected by the state agencies. It would be easy to regulate firearms and take action against violent crimes if they were causing harm in society (Elson). After the shooting in Parkland, Florida, the head of the National Rifle Association, Wayne Lapierre accused the mainstream media and gun control advocates of using the tragedy to push their agenda (Chang). People are fearing for their safety, they argue, “that restricting the right to bear arms would leave citizens unable to protect themselves in their daily lives or, in a worst-case scenario, from a government turned against the people” (Deutsche). The media has negative effects on gun violence and gun control in

The second Amendment to the Constitution, which concern is the rights to bear arms, has always been a hot-button issue, especially during election season. In the United States, the ability to choose whether or not to own a gun means favoring or opposing the right and the legislation restricting rights that come with it. For years, gun rights and gun control groups alike have been lobbying Congress for decades to sway legislation to their respective favors. The question then become, should the United States have more control over guns? The issue of guns in America should remain in the hands of the citizens because it helps people feel more safe and they help prevent people from becoming victims of crime.

Violence in all sorts of ways has been relevant since the beginning of time. It is human nature to be violent and in the last decade there have been an uproar in mass shootings. These mass shootings have prompted anti-gun advocates to crusade against lawful gun ownership. In 2012, ¨Adam Lanza, 20, kills 26 people, including 20 children, and himself at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, prompting calls for gun control reform("Chronology”). The Sandy Hook shooting really brought the issue of gun control to the media. Another example is when ¨A mentally disturbed student at Virginia Polytechnic and State University (Virginia Tech) kills 32 people, including himself, and injures several others in an on-campus shooting rampage (“Chronology”). This is again another incident that has happened by the use of firearms. As always, the media plays a big part in how people view the role of firearms in these incidents. People that are not gun owners automatically think that guns are bad. This is not true. The media only shows the bad part of guns, but never will the media have news about an incident where someone used a gun to save lives. The origin of this problem is fairly new, and there have been many attempts to put restrictions on firearms. ¨A variety of gun control measures are proposed, mainly by congressional Democrats, but none have enough political support to pass” (“Chronology”). The only restrictions that have been put in