Essay on The Right to Bear Arms a Constitutional Conflict

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.

People believed that “the right to bear arms is the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanction of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression”. On the opposite hand, many states at the time believed that to give the people the right to own a gun was unconstitutional because it could be a threat for the state government when everyone was allowed to own guns. Majority of states in America did not want to add the right to bear arms into their state constitution, because there was not a single legal model emerged on how to protect them in the first constitutions drafted by our Founding Fathers. The debate between gun control and non-gun control over the right to bear arms alarmed America. The gun control claimed that the right to bear arms is the basic right that people should have in order for American citizens to defense themselves and for their state.; They believed that the laws prohibiting individuals from carrying firearms only work for the benefit of criminals. On the opposite hand, anti-gun controllers believed that those gun owners should be led by gentlemen of the first fortune and character, because the society without the guidance of gentlemen, those gun controllers’ population might easily become a mob and not a well-regulated militia. After reviewing many opinions from both sides as well as the benefits and effectiveness of the rights, the convention agreed and

The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to discourage undemocratic/ oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Additionally, the right to bear arms was instituted

How about hunter where would we be without them? Can you imagine not being able to go

     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.

The first speaker, Dr. Khal Schneider, addresses the words behind the 2nd amendment. He provides us with a historical background around the formation of the amendment and further describes the works that are within this amendment. He highlights words such as “Militia”, “necessary”, “arms”, and “infringed”. He describes how these words can be interpreted differently, thus making it hard to actually interpret the amendment for what it actually means. For instance, he draws attention to the word “arms” and describes the evolution. He illustrates that his amendment must be looked at in respects to the century it was written in. He then describes the difference between “arms’ within both centuries. He draws attention to the increase

Despite the fact that the Anti-Federalists’ position looking into firearm privileges might have been more welcomed to the American perspective, their interpretation of the right to keep and bear arms exposed the new country to hazard. The Federalist’s idea of a standing army regulated by the Government would the more appropriate to a new country. If the right to bear arms would be restricted and given just to whom the Government authorized and trained the radicalism through arm use would be avoided, the population would not be exposed to a hazard society in which everyone who could afford could have and use arms. And the Government would have a better control on gun issues and their owners, what would help to the prosperity and safety of the

“The right to bear arms”, an amendment so prioritized by our founding fathers that it earned the very second spot on the list of birth rights as Americans. However, with constant tragedies striking the United States, such as massacres in public high schools and universities, mall shootings, and attempted assassinations on state representatives, it’s no wonder law makers are constantly debating the topic of gun control.

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 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.

the Revolutionary War period, colonists viewed the right to bear arms as a natural right, and rightfully

Since I was a little girl, I remember hunting season; Dad and Katlyn, my sister, would come home to say they killed a deer. Even though I did not enjoy hunting, I still see how much they love to go; hunting great bonding time for them. My dad taught my sister and me how important gun safety is. He has shown us how to carry a gun properly, never to aim it at anyone, never put our finger on the trigger until ready to shoot, and always leave the safety button on until ready to shoot as well. In my house guns are always hidden or locked up in a safe, only Dad knows the combination, so no intruder can get to them. Guns are a very serious item. I was raised to understand guns are not something to joke around about; if they are in the hands

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

According to The Second Amendment of the Constitution, the citizens of the United States have the right to own and bear arms, in order to form a well-regulated militia for the security of the states. This right has been discussed for decades as an important issue for the American society, and it has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century until nowadays. This right germinated with the threat to freedom that the standing army of professional soldiers brought to the Americans. Some argued that the right to bear arms is mainly concerned with self-defense while others argued that this right was implemented to avoid militia disarmament and protect the Free State. This right was

The main reason for the focus on the aim of the amendment as argued above, was from the fact possession of firearms by the population may pose a challenge to the army in place. This he quotes the arguments of Noah Webster that for an army to rule adequately the people must be disarmed. He also referred to George Mason’s remarks that during the colonial period British focused on disarming their subjects in order to be able to easily exploit them. On the same note, Tench Coxe says that empowering the masses to check on the army may encourage adoption of absolute powers.