“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”(understand) comes from the United States constitution. It has for the last decade or so been a topic of an ongoing debate between the people of this nation. It all depends on how you interpret the 27 words. Most people believe that it gives United States citizens the right to bear arms. The constitution is the supreme law of our land. It was made to be are foundation and source of legal authority. It was adopted in September 17, 1787 in the name of the people. It was created to replace The Articles of Confederation.The country wanted to be united and not so divided. The Constitution is a set …show more content…
It happens that the militia part of amendment is a preamble and the amendment is giving the right to the people. (Beck) A militia then was a group of able men who could choose to fight. The right was given to the people and those people could join the militia if they wanted to. People also want guns controlled because of the violence they seem to have associated with them. They think that in the old days they did not have gun crimes, but its human nature to commit crimes. In 1775 North Carolina, it was reported that a man killed three people and was shot by pedestrians before he could do any more harm. (Beck) This just shows that having a gun can help diffuse bad situations. People with guns can protect themselves from criminals who want to cause them harm. Many people believe that if you take away guns away from honest people, and only criminals will have guns. (Gun control S) Yet some think that the second amendment is outdated because we have police. Well if you imply that to this amendment then why is it not implied to other amendments? Some hope to destroy are country’s foundation be attacking the written foundation. But you may think it’s outdated because guns have come a long way. Yes, guns have become very sophisticated with multiple shots ready to fire in a row. Yet the right of guns to be protected reaches out to the new guns too. Just like the way speech is protected with the first amendment
Gun control in America is one of the most fiercely debated topics in today’s political sphere. Nearly everyone has an opinion and there is a mind-boggling amount of information typically discussed regarding the matter. Media hot takes and campaign talking points aside, far too many lives have been lost to gun violence. A total of 12,902 in 2016, to be exact. The fact that more lives have been lost to gun violence in the United States this year than the 5,000 lost in the almost 10-year war effort overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan is appalling. Is sensible and reasonable gun control progress attainable in our near future? That remains to be seen, however it is my intention to respectfully dissect an argument presented by none other than an essay
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely proclaims a purpose. It does not limit nor expand the scope of the sentence “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The clause’s text demonstrates that it brings an individual right to keep and bear arms (Bill of
A constitution is a written document that sets forth the fundamental rules by which a society is governed. Throughout the course of history the United States has lived under two Constitutions since the British-American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. First in line was the Articles of Confederation (1789-1789) followed by the Constitution of United States of America (1789-present). The Articles of Confederation was the first formal written Constitution of America that specified how the national government was to operate. Unfortunately, the Articles did not last long. Under the words of the Article’s power was limited; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. Also the articles stated
Gun control is a very controversial issue among society at present. Many feel guns are the cause of a great amount of crime. This has been an especially popular topic recently in lieu of the shooting at Columbine and other high schools across the country. Are these crimes reason to take away our freedom to bear arms? I do not believe so. The average person uses guns mainly as a means of protection. If limitations are placed on guns, they will only stop the average American from obtaining a gun. The real criminals out there will still be able to obtain guns through the black market. Every American should have the right to protect them self.
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 December 1791, the Second Amendment was made: The Second Amendment offers “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep arms, and shall not be infringed.” This basically means United States gives the right to its residents to keep arms, and it guaranteed individuals the right to possess arms for their own personal defense. In the past few decades there been thousands of pages that are written seeking to uncover the meaning of the “the people,” and “bear arms,” have been strongly debated.
Ratified December 15, 1791, the bill of rights was added to the U.S. Constitution as a way to ensure the protection of every individual’s rights. The bill itself is a list of rights which limits the power of the federal government and gives power back to the people in the form of rights and liberties. Some of this rights include freedom of speech, religion, and press, but perhaps the one right that still to this day has many people questioning the meaning behind its wording is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states that “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” (Acosta, 2008). In short the amendment grants the right to bear arms,
Amendment; this is the Amendment that is used as the basis for each American having the right to bear arms. It has certainly been a subject of conversation in the US; proponents argue that no one has the authority to take that right away from US citizens while opponents asking for an amendment that would allow the amendment to acclimate to current realities of the 21st century (Levintova, 2014). To understand the problem with the second amendment, one has to go back to the origin of the said law; the bill of rights was first created in 1789 along with the first ten amendments, to understand the intent of the authors of said amendments.
“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.
The second amendment of United States constitution said “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”. This amendment was embraced on December 15, 1791, taking in consideration that American citizens have a natural right to self-defense and they can help to accomplish the following purposes:
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 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 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.
What exactly is the Constitution? The Constitution of the United States is the highest set of laws of the United States, which cannot be ignored without severe repercussions. The Constitution was the successor to the Articles of Confederation, which had severely failed at keeping the country together, both politically and economically, so it was abolished. Because of that, the Philadelphia Convention convened with the goal to fix the law. It was finished and signed on September 17, 1787 and it has been used up to this day.
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).