The Necessity of Gun Control
Gun control is one of the most debatable topics today. Thirty-three million Americans own firearms for hunting (Aitkens 9). But hunting is not the sole reason for which many individuals buy firearms. Of all countries, the United States is the one which is troubled most by a large number of criminals who are in possession of guns. The U.S. has the highest firearm murder rate of any democracy in the world (Aitkens 5). Where is the country going wrong as far as gun control is concerned? An immense number of laws have been created by the legislature. All were made in order to be sure guns remain in control of the right hands, yet the problems seem to prevail. All three branches of government (judicial,
…show more content…
More than 47,000 people die each year in motor vehicle accidents. If we ban their use, no one will ever have a motor vehicle accident and no one will ever die" (Aitkens 11). The whole idea of restricting firearms can seem absurd when contrasted with information published by the National Rifle Association which states that in reality over 99.8 percent of firearms and 99.6 percent of handguns will never be involved in criminal activity. This means that gun control laws would restrict law-abiding citizens, while doing nothing to reduce crime (Aitkens 13-15).
The following twenty-seven words of the Second Amendment have caused quite a bit of confusion for the past two hundred years:
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 (Landau 44).
The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. But to whom does it guarantee the right? Everybody? Whom exactly did the people who wrote the amendment have in mind? Let's not forget, this was written over two hundred years ago when life was different. At that time hunting was a major means of getting food and guns were required to protect oneself and one's property from hostile Native Americans and other intruders. In other words, what a car is to an American today, a rifle was to an American back then - a bare necessity (Gottfried 26-31). Another problem
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.
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,
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”.1 It is important to understand that the Second Amendment was created in order to allow the American people to form militias in response to a tyrannical government attempting to suppress the American way of life. In order for Americans to form militias, they must uphold their freedom to bear arms as a
President obama said at a press conference on October 01, 2015 “The solution to such violence is obvious. It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun.” (Simple Minded Gun Control). Gun control is a controversial issue worldwide. The reason why this has attracted so much attention is because not everyone is in favor of gun control and each side brings up excellent points about the issue. Research related to this issue strongly supports the claim that there SHOULD be more gun control laws. Three arguments that prove this position are (1) Incidents like Sandy Hook will be less likely to occur (2) It reduces the high rates of accidental deaths (3) As the years pass by and technology updates the laws should be up to date as well. Members from the National Rifles Association state that No law-abiding American should be forced to face evil with empty hands. I say I agree with President Obama there SHOULD be more gun control laws because it should not be as easy as it is for someone who wants to inflict harm on others to get their hands on a weapon.
Although the 2nd Amendment only contains one sentence, the interpretation of it can be misconstrued if the use of critical thought is not applied during the analysis. Supporters of gun control argue that the ambiguous language in the 2nd Amendment leads to confusion about the interpretation. That in itself warrants further discussion about rewriting the 2nd Amendment or simply eradicating it. Also, the provision is outdated and no longer coincides with the times. In regards to the addition of “well regulated militia,” guns were meant to protect people from tyranny and any form of militarized government suppression. With that said, firearms should alternatively be restricted from other uses with
Now lets ask ourselves, what does the second amendment mean? Who gets to keep and bear arms? One side focuses on the phrase “A well-regulated militia” to argue that only people who are in a militia such as the National Guard have the right to bear arms. The other side focuses on the phrase “The right of the people” to argue that law-abiding citizens, whether or not they are in a militia have the right to bear arms. Who’s correct? For further insight, the wisdom and prudence of our founding fathers proves to be instructive, as they lived in this influential time. In the Federal Farmer number 28, Richard Henry Lee wrote, “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves.” In congruence with Richard’s thinking Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison saying, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve
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:
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”
At the time of the Bill of Rights’ ratification, the United States had only just broken free of the Articles of Confederacy, a document intended to create a loose union with the individual states holding all the power. In order to garner more support for the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment was added in to protect the states’ rights to their own armed forces—a right which is of little importance in the 21st century. Because of the strength of these arguments, pro-gun control advocates point to the historical context in which the 2nd Amendment was written in order to justify stricter laws.
“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 gives the citizens the right to bear arms or to protect themselves.
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
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.
Many do not fully comprehend the Second Amendment which reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear