The Importance Of Gun Control Laws

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

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

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.

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 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.

The debate over gun control has been raging through the American political systems for years. On one side, there is the National Rifle Association (NRA) and 2nd Amendment-citing citizens who use their firearms for hunting and self-defense. On the other, there is Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) and followers of the Brady Campaign who want to ban guns on the basis that they are dangerous. Both sides have strong arguments, anchored in historical precedent and statistical analysis. Anti-gun control lobbyists’ arguments include the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment, the definition of “militia” as any adult male, self-defense, the relative uselessness of permits and regulations, and court cases in favor of firearm possession. Pro-gun control activists

“The boundaries of the Second Amendment do not coincide with the boundaries of gun control” (Blocher and Miller, 2016, p.296). Guns and the idea of gun control have been a high valued topic, between the Federal Government and state governments since the beginning of the 20th century. How strictly guns should be regulated is a common topic between the Federal Government and state governments, especially with the increase in mass shootings over the years. Although there are regulations set by the Federal Government, most of the time, it falls on state governments to mandate guns because it is easier for each state to determine what is best for it and the people that live there. State governments are more closely related to the people in

In recent years, there have been many stories of shootings taken place across various parts of the United States, all of which bring up the highly volatile topic of gun control. Unlike many other wealthy countries, such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and Australia, where gun ownership is strictly regulated, by in large-the US has very little universal gun control laws throughout the nation. This great controversy is based on the Constitutional right of the Second Amendment, stating, “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.” Though this is a Constitutional right, unlike many other Amendments, understanding they were written in

The context of the Second Amendment has frequently been debated in American history. Namely, the constitutionality of issuing restrictive laws on gun control based on the Second Amendment has caused controversy. In the last fifty years the prevalence of this topic has grown dramatically. With the increase in recent tragic events, such as school shootings and homicides, guns laws have become a common topic. Gun control activists have often sought stricter restrictions and laws to prevent citizens from purchasing and possessing guns in general. While there are many interesting arguments on both sides of the issue, it poses an important question on our inherent rights, as guaranteed

Gun control should be implied more than it is now. More gun laws should be created in order to tame society. Americans own over 300 million guns. According to (Everitt,Ladd) the author of the article “Does the U.S. Need Tougher Gun-Control Laws?” There are 99 gun deaths a day and some who committed the crime were not eligible to obtain or carry a weapon. More teens are being killed with guns than any other crime. Teens are not eligible to obtain guns due to the age requirement that is 21 years of age with a background check. There are gun show loopholes were 18 year olds can go and buy a gun without a license and background check. “The major cities chiefs association endorses closing the gun show loophole” according to Richard Perez-Pena the

Gun control has a history dating back to 1791, when the Second Amendment of the Constitution was ratified. However, more recently, the debate over gun control has escalated into a much more public issue to which many citizens can relate. After all, stories about incidents involving guns appear frequently today in newspapers and on television or the radio. One could say that the debate started with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned ownership of guns by certain groups of people and regulated the sale of guns. Since then, two main groups have gradually appeared: people who oppose strict federal

Many would agree that there is a distressing amount of violence in America. Violence takes place in many forms, in different severities, and in many places. In an effort to continually make our society more civilized, ways to stop these violent acts from occurring are always being contemplated. There are many ways to approach the epidemic in America, but one that has increasing popularity is applying more strict gun control laws. Strict gun laws are viewed by many to be a step in the right direction, but they are actually a potential danger to the citizens of the United States.

The Constitution of the United States of America is a building block of how our country came to be. If a single amendment is questioned, the entire validity of the Constitution is questioned. The mains topics I will be discussing in this paper are: how gun control laws are put into place, common sense as a driving force behind the Second Amendment and how guns are obtained. I will summarize all of these topics under women being able more efficiently protect themselves by being able to carry a

Having you ever seen a gun just get up and start walking around? In America the biggest debate right now is most likely gun control. Some people believe that America needs to ban guns, while others think that wouldn’t help and our gun control laws are good now. Guns should not be made illegal, and here’s why.

Gun control or Gun freedom has been an important debate in the American history. The proponents of Gun freedom use the 2nd amendment to indicate how the constitution protects the right of every citizen to own a gun. The opponents on the other hand question this interpretation of the 2nd amendment or call for a change in constitution if that is what it takes to make American societies safer. This group believes that this interpretation used by pro-guns lobbies has been taken out of context and is allowing huge industrial groups to benefit from the sales of arms at the expense of peaceful societies.