Gun control is one of the most debated about topic today in America; between news outlet, the public, and politicians. As some politicians look to resolve the gun control issues, with banning them, imposing more restriction to sellers, buyers and owner; some people and politicians consider the second amendment to be relic and should be removed from the constitution. History has shown us time and time again even through all the violence and chaos in the world and America, that there is a reason for the creation of the second amendment. From history of America independence in 1776 to the ratification of the bill of right in 1791 the 2nd amendment still remains relevant form it creation, to modern times, and the protection of America’s future; for the freedom of its inhabitants and citizens. The once influential 20th century thinker George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Looking back into ancient history, the history of second amendment, recent and current history we can find clues that will support the relevance of the 2nd amendment. We will also define the second amendment and try to find solutions to our current problems from what our forefathers had say.
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified effective by Congress. These first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America promised the states certain rights and freedoms which could not be infringed by the government. After all, the founding fathers knew from experience that men in their weakness were often tempted by power. They had become all too familiar with this when under the control of King George in England. Therefore, in order to protect the future people of their beautiful country, they promised certain liberties which could not be taken away. Every single one of these freedoms is important for the United States of America. However, the second amendment is especially important
On September 17, 1787, the United States Constitution was signed by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, who were directed by George Washington. The 1787 convention was called to draft a new legal system for the United States now that the states were free and colonized. This new Constitution was made to increase federal authority while still protecting the rights of citizens. It established America’s National Government. In 1971, the Bill of Rights were added to Constitution containing the 10 amendments guaranteeing protection for citizens. The first commandment consisting of freedom of speech and religion. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
The world is a dangerous place to live. Every day, we wake up, send our children off to school and spend most of our lives working. We put ourselves in harm’s way every time we leave our homes. At any moment, we could be killed in an automobile accident, plane crash, gunshot wound or any other random occurrence that happens in this crazy world we live in. There have been so many advancements in technology and medicine to protect ourselves from these lucks of the draw events that life throws at us, but some people seem to have a problem with gun ownership. Gun ownership for many is viewed like the seatbelt of a car or the vaccine given to us to prevent the Flu, it is a form of protection and security. Some people in our country would argue that there needs to be a banning of fire arms or more restrictions to keep fire arms out of people’s hands. I disagree with this idea. I feel that Federal and State governments should not bad firearms or make the purchasing process more difficult. It is every legal citizen right to bear arms, whether it is for protection or sport.
To begin with, the Fourth Amendment was constituted to protect the people from unreasonable searches and seizures. However, there are times and cases in which an investigation is started and evidence is collected illegally. There are doctrines such as The Exclusionary Rule and Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in place to eliminate any evidence to be used in court if obtained illegally. This paper will differentiate the two doctrines as well explain how and why the two could possibly be incorporated in the case of “Who did it.” We will also look into the immunity that government officials may have pertaining to civil liability and see if officers affiliated with the “Who did It” case are protected from their actions.
Staff carrying a concealed handgun will help stop a shooting spree before the shooter can pull off a second shot, and before the police even arrive. For example, after the Apr. 20, 1999 Columbine High School massacre, the state of Colorado enacted the 2003 Concealed Carry Act to allow law-abiding citizens the right to carry a concealed weapon. The CATO Institute concluded that this law helped to stop a massacre at the New Life mega-church in Dec. 2007 when a volunteer security guard for the church who was carrying a concealed handgun shot an attacker who had opened fire in the church (Pros and Cons). This only took a matter of seconds, whereas if no one was carrying a concealed handgun, the attacker would have shot and potentially killed a few people before anyone could even pull out their phones to call 911, and then the response time it takes the police to arrive is enough to kill a few more people. The same thing would have happened at Columbine if staff were allowed, able, and able to carry a concealed weapon. What was a total of 13 deaths, could have turned into maybe just 1 if a teacher was carrying. However, someone could propose that criminals are more likely to carry a gun if they think that their
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is one of the most controversial. 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." There have been many arguments over the amendment's meaning and interpretation. There are those who interpret the amendment to mean it provides for people as a whole monitored by the military, while the other view is that it provides individual rights to the people. The controversy brought on by the Second Amendment is it does not clearly define whom "the people" are. Ambiguity has left room for action by legislators and the courts to pass laws and make interpretations
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." This amendment has been understood amongst the American people, as simply “the right to bear arms”. The creation of the United States constitution was left in the hands of young men whom had served in the Continental Army prior to the draft of the historical document. Having witnessed the violence of the Revolution, these Federalists had the fear of suffering from a weak centralized government. “Anti-federalists”, members that opposed the Constitution, feared that this new government could build one centralized professional army, disarming the 13 state militias.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution peruses: "A very much managed Militia, being important to the security of a free State, the privilege of the individuals to keep and remain battle ready, might not be encroached." Such dialect has made extensive open deliberation in regards to the Amendment's planned degree. From one perspective, some accept that the Amendment's expression "the privilege of the individuals to keep and remain battle ready" makes an individual established a good fit for nationals of the United States. Under this "individual right hypothesis," the United States Constitution limits authoritative bodies from denying gun ownership, or at any rate, the Amendment renders prohibitory and prohibitive regulation hypothetically
To begin this essay, I will state that I believe that the second amendment is truly beneficial to making money in the U.S. economy.
After reviewing the given information from Ms. Bennett, there is a strong possibility the court will find the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The Fourth Amendment states:
Supporters beg to differ by explaining that it is effective because it helps make the workplace less violent and safer. According an online scholar journal, The Employer's Conundrum of Firearms & Parking Lots, written by Texas State University professors Dr. Sanders, Dr. Pattison, and Dr. John K. Ross, III, the promoters thinks that the bill pushes for an individual’s safety and protection when going to and from work (Sanders). It gives the employee’s a sense of security. The loaded guns that it in their car could be first thing that comes to an individual’s mind in an unpredictable situation that can happen to anyone at any time even at work. Advocates of the bill may also add it is effective because it gives an individual’s their rights to self-defend themselves. In numerous state like Oklahoma are passing “Self-Defense Act” to prohibit employers from enforcing any restriction and regulation against workers from storing guns or in their car that is located at an individual job’s site because they have their right to do so (Sanders). Clearly, the advocates for this Guns in the Parking lot bill think the law is effective since it is safest and ethical to allow employees to have guns in their car at their
No, I do not agree with the NRA that if companies ban guns from their parking lots, this restriction would take “a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment” or nullify the right of people to have weapons for self defense. The Second Amendment gives the owner of the property the right to refuse weapons on their private property. I feel everyone believes in the Second Amendment but some people feel more strongly about this issue than others and it is a political issue. The state legislature should not get involved when it pertains to the issue of private property such as company property policies. These types of matters should be left up to the company and their policy makers.
Weapons have evolved in significant ways since the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. The ratification of the Bill of Rights included the Second Amendment that claims, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Spalding 33). Lawyer Les Adams speaks to these changes in The Second Amendment Primer. The Second Amendment Primer is a print source that has information before the Second Amendment ratification, and speaks to what the founding fathers meant originally making the Amendment. It also covers the press that was on the Second Amendment in colonial times. As well as in, court cases in the present day that have used the Second Amendment. That might have a biased on this stance because Les Adams is a part of the Republican Party. The Second Amendment has had many interpretations since the eighteenth century because of the definitions of the words that are being used in the Second Amendment. Although, there are many purists who feel the Second Amendment is perfectly fine the way it is for a variety of reasons, a deeper look into American society and gun-related violence suggests that we need to consider the idea of amending an outdated part of the Constitution.