Essay about The Second Amendment

Thomas Jefferson once said, “The beauty of the second amendment is that it won’t be needed until they try to take it.” Today there are people who want to take our right to bear arms, they wish for gun control and gun bans, although they don’t see that without our guns we cannot protect them, the same people who wish we couldn’t carry or own our weapons. Even our government has tried to push gun regulations on us. This is what Thomas Jefferson was trying to tell us! The second amendment to me means the right to stay free and protect the people who I care for, the American people.

Guns, used for a wide variety of things, such as hunting, sports, and defense. Though destructive, guns have their uses. But what allows citizens to own guns in the U.S.? The answer to that question is the 2nd amendment. The amendment states that citizens can bear guns, and that a free state should have a good militia. At the end of the amendment, the amendment states that it should not be infringed. Back in 2012 Obama was claimed to try to take away guns. Should guns be taken away from U.S. citizens, or even the whole second amendment? Well, the second amendment should not be taken away, because guns provide defense against attackers, state militias provide more safety, and the amendment itself says it should not

More than than 270,000 troops are being denied their gun rights,mainly from the thoughts of those who are against the 2nd Amement. It really is common in the United States. And they also are very powerful and one shot can change your life for the worst, if used incorrectly. And that shot can or even could killed somebody. And that what makes them deadly. Guns are essiential to the United States of America because guns give us protection, and they are used for hunting and other recreational activities, and they really aren’t the biggest problem to the country.

We have had several of the worst mass shootings in our nation's history in quick succession over the past few years. Certain legal restrictions and acts from our government could have prevented numerous deaths. Common sense background checks and limitations to cartridge size and assault weapons would surely have saved many lives at the Las Vegas Massacre, but certain men and women claim that these restrictions violate their second amendment right. They claim that guns aren't the problem. That guns don't kill people, people kill people. So limiting access to devastating guns is just avoiding the problem. The Second Amendment right presumably violated by common sense gun control is “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” (Second Amendment). The Second Amendment states that for the need of a well regulated militia to protect the security of the free state and the right for the people to keep and bear arms. Militias have been inactive for decades so in a sense the intent of the amendment is no longer relevant. Based on the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution is not still a valuable and viable document in modern America because it stands in the way of thorough background checks, training courses, and its vague wording and absolute intent make it inefficient to maintain peace and order and should be amended “To the People of the United

How can the original writing and intent of the second amendment, be relevant in our society today?

The right to bear arms is a birth given right to all Americans by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment has become controversial recently due to the technological advancement of firearms. Modern firearms are capable of both high rates of fire and greater capacities of ammunition, unlike the single shot muskets that were available at the time of the Second Amendment’s conception. American liberals view these improvements in firearms as dangerous and unnecessary. However, no matter how dangerous firearms may be, the Second Amendment is a necessity for one factor alone: protection from one’s own government and it must be upheld. The Second Amendment provides a physical tool for Americans to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, it allows Americans to form militias against a tyrannical government, and it allows Americans to maintain comparable firearms of the U.S. government in order to prevent the potential loss of American freedoms in the future.

The supporters of gun control want our government to eliminate the sales of guns to the public. This will make a tremendous difference as far as gun crimes are concerned. Kids and teenagers would no longer be exposed to guns inside the households and this will prevent these kids and teens from making bad uneducated decisions. As long as the Second Amendment is still in effect, there are other

“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 opposite side of this debate consists of those who claim that the amendment guarantees some sort of individual right to arms. This view comes from the literal wording of the Second Amendment, which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Along with this argument, the NRA and other groups in opposition of gun control argue that the first, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments are all constructed to refer to the citizens as individuals and not as a collective state. These gun advocates feel that if one is to give a rational interpretation of the collective view to the constitution, then one would have to assume that the Framers referred to the individuals in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments; to the states in the second amendment, and then separated the states and the people in the tenth amendment, although they feel that this was inconsistent with the wording of the second amendment (5).

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 Bill of Rights is considered a cornerstone for freedom in America. It purpose to the country is to protect the rights of the citizens in the United States. The Bill of Rights was put in place in order to ensure that the people will be granted a number of personal rights as an American citizen, and that the government will not become as powerful as to pose a threat to the citizens of the United States.

Through the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court sets their first precedent concerning the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense by establishing the individual right of gun ownership for lawful purposes. The Court grants this interpretation of the Second Amendment after the U.S. Circuit Courts have set a six decade precedent of rejecting challenges to federal regulation of firearms with few exceptions under the United States v. Miller (1939) decision. Fox News Channel’s senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, writing in defense of this decision, states that self-defense using firearms is a natural right enshrined by the Second Amendment, and that historical precedents of using guns to successfully defend against tyrants justify the current need for guns, not only for recreational activities such as hunting deer, but also for weapons with sufficient power to defend against enemies with equal effectiveness. Furthermore, supporters interpret the Second Amendment to apply to the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. However, based on the preamble to the Amendment, historical context, and the precedent case United States v. Miller, the Second Amendment intends to protect the right of people in a militia to keep and bear arms and does not preclude federal restriction of individual firearm ownership, especially considering the changes to the structure of the American militia and military

Much has been made by the gun control advocates of the phrase “a well-regulated militia”, as it appears in the second amendment; arguing that the true intent of the framers was to guarantee this right to state militias and not the individual. I believe the flaw in this argument comes from their ignorance at best and selective interpretation or outright lying at worst, of the historical facts surrounding the original intent of this amendment.

In the book Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms, Wilson discusses the complex issue of gun control and the many debates and controversies regarding the issue. Many people throughout the United States feel it is the right as a citizen in the United States to own a weapon, and the government should have no say in the matter. These people believe this because of the part of the Second Amendment that states, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” People who are strong advocates against gun control use this part of the Second Amendment to drive their point across. Advocates against gun control believe that preserving the freedom of a state through a militia is not the only way

Gun control has been one of the most controversial topic in the society. Some people support gun control because they think it will help reduce homicide. However, gun control won’t help reduce homicide, and it will have negative economic effect. In addition, people can be safer when there is no gun control.