The Remedy Stripping Quality Of The Arms Act Essay

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

In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of

The right to bear arms is a wonderful thing. The law is great for multiple reasons and should not be taken away by Obama. Reason one for the right to bear arms is to be used as self defense in case of an attack by another person. Reason two for the right to bear arms helps citizens to save their own life and live a safe life. Reason three, in order to get a gun the person must go under a background check. Reason four, people are excluded if they have a criminal act against someone. Reason five, this law does not carelessly let a person own a firearm.

The right to possess guns is a fundamental element to American identity. The right to own and operate guns under certain circumstances is in fact guaranteed as part of the United States Constitution. Over the course of American history and particularly in the 21st century, there exists a great debate over the possession of guns of private citizens. Both sides of the debate argue with fervor. There are those that argue fervently for the right to possess arms; they argue for guns with regard to home protection, property protection, personal security, and that it is a fundamental right as a citizen.

Imagine waking up in the middle of the night to a complete stranger who is in your house, threatening to harm you, and your family, and you cannot do anything about it. Imagine, not being able to go target shooting or hunting, because there are laws passed to prevent you from owning a firearm. The truth is, more and more people in this country are trying to restrict law-abiding people from owning firearms due to the overwhelming rise in gun related crimes. As law abiding citizens, the constitution gives us the right to bear arms. Whether it is for recreation or protection,

     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 hot-button topic in the world of U.S. politics today is the controversy over whether or not new gun laws need to be instituted to keep Americans safe. We are a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and one that sticks to traditional values. With this, comes a great deal of incongruity, which makes for a very sensitive debate on gun control. On one side of the spectrum, we have those who take a more liberal stance; while they do in fact support the second amendment, there is no doubt that the U.S. has evolved significantly since the Constitution was written, hence creating a need for strict gun laws. On the other side of the spectrum, conservatives argue that as soon as executive action inhibits the fundamental principles in which

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which 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”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

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

Heller, the court ruled that “the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms…including, ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation’” (National Rifle Association, 2011 par 4). Although the Constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms, it does not exclude “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places…or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms,” (Romano & Wingert, 2011 par 13). In recent years here has been much discussion among the nation’s lawmakers and their constituents as to whether or not the Second Amendment is still constitutional; the question is whether or not the Second Amendment should be revised, to prohibit the sale of firearms to those who do not meet certain conditions and qualifications, or even removed from the constitution. According to a national survey of 1,005 high school students, conducted by Vittes, Sorrenson and Gilbert, “63.7 percent of high school students believe that regulating the sale of guns does not violate the constitution” (2003, pg 12). In the same survey, 64.6 percent responded that they would support stricter laws addressing the sale of firearms, and 82.2 percent of those surveyed, believe that the government should make and enforce laws making it more difficult for

Guns are one of the most controversial and debated-upon topics in America today. In the Constitution, Americans are given “the right to bear arms,” and many Americans are proud of and believe strongly in that right. Though, that right has been constantly misused. Homicides by gun are at a higher rate in the United States than any other country in the world, mass shootings are at an all time high (many of which have occurred in the past two years alone), and terrorism has been at an all-time high. So, naturally, it is a topic that needs to be discussed. In the articles Change Your Gun Laws, America (1), author Fareed Zakaria provides the readers with some harrowing statistics on guns and insight over how the U.S. laws on guns need to be managed.

America has always prided itself on being the land of the free. Our national Constitution and Bill of Rights have ensured that the people of America maintain their basic rights. Nevertheless, many of the rights guaranteed in these historic documents are often the subject of heated debate. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination, the First Amendment’s protection of speech and petitioning activity, all of these issues have been subject to contentious arguments in courts of law and the courts of public opinion. Of late, however, the most lengthy, argumentative and noisy debates have focused on gun control. Some people think that

In Molly Ivins op-ed “Get a Knife, get a Gun, but Get Rid of Guns,” she examines the true meaning behind the second amendment as well as its relevancy in the present United States. Ivins interprets the second amendment as it is written in which the only group with the freedom to bear arms are well-regulated militias (Ivins 384). Though Ivins only evidence throughout her piece is the clear definition of the second amendment, the simplicity of it only adds to the satire in which she is writing. Ivins could easily incorporate court cases and legal documentation better defining the true meaning of the second amendment, but it is her choice to only include the definition in the original constitution. The evidence, or lack thereof, aids in the presentation

The right to keep and bear arms was considered a fundamental, individual right in the original 13 colonies from the pre-Revolutionary period through the ratification of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution in 1791. The Amendment 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. The right to keep and bear arms has been a topic of extreme controversy in this century and can be argued equally from both sides. The first side says that it is our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On the flip side, it is too dangerous and would increase the number of violent crimes. No matter which side is

There are new proposed gun control laws in the aftermath of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut that occurred on December 14th, 2012. This incident claimed the lives of twenty 1st graders and six adults and has set the government in motion to try to prevent future acts of violence by strengthening gun control laws in the United States (Smith). This has been a topic that has been an extremely emotional debate with people on both sides unwilling to compromise. Gun advocates and critics of the new proposed gun laws argue that these new laws infringe on our constitutional