The Second Amendment - The Right To Bear Arms 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

The gun debate in the United States widely revolves around the intended interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those who support gun rights claim that the founding fathers developed and subsequently ratified the Second Amendment to guarantee the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Those who want more stringent gun laws feel that the founding fathers directed this Amendment solely to the formation of militias and are thus, outdated.

Death, violence, individual rights, crime, and cost are many words that arise when researching the controversial topic of gun control. This issue revolves around the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and 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.” Is there a black and white answer or is there a need to find a middle ground? The foundational right must be preserved for an individual to own a gun. However, basic safety measures need to be in place for added protection and security of all Americans. To explore why this balance is the best option, it is necessary to look further into the

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

One of the most controversial issues in our society today is the topic of private gun ownership and gun control laws. This controversy has arisen mostly due to the different ways that the second constitutional amendment is interpreted. The amendment states that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Lott, 2000). On one side of the issue, there are those that believe that the amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. On the other side are those that contend that the amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.

The debate over the right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment has been a hotly contested issue for many years in American history. The matter has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first; disputed between politicians on the liberal and conservative side along with issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage. The Supreme Court has officially defined the controversial Second Amendment by stating that states have the right to maintain a militia separate from a federally controlled army (Gale Encyclopedia, pg. 155-162). However, “Courts have consistently held that the state and federal governments may lawfully regulate the sale, transfer,

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 founding fathers like Alexander Hamilton are the ones who wrote the second amendment. So why did they write it? What were they worried about? The main objective of the Second Amendment was to protect the people from tyranny. The right to have a gun allows the people of the United States to fight an oppressive government just like the French Revolution against King Louis XVI in 1789–1799. Fighting an oppressive government through individuals or a militia. Some people agree that a militia should be able to have guns, but this wouldn’t be a group of citizens. It would be an organization like the National Guard, but the idea of the militia would be to fight an armed guard like the National Guard. As stated by the Harvard Journal of

The term “gun control” deals with the regulation of the selling, purchasing, and using of firearms in America. The availability of firearms to the public has been causing serious debates around the country because of the diversity in the people’s cultures, judgment, and religions. Many people thought the provision set by the Second Amendment when it was ratified can perfectly be applied in the society today. However, the understanding of people about the Second Amendment and how they interpret it change over time. They cannot agree with each other about the meaning of the historical evidence (Karlan, 2013). Research and polls found that people in the rural areas tend to support the right of gun owners while those in urban areas encourage gun control. Due

Some Americans feel that because guns are already regulated in so many other countries, America should just follow suit, while others believe guns both represent and help guarantee our independence, our liberty, and our freedom to make our own decisions. The founding fathers anticipated that gun control could become a serious issue in the future, so they added the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second 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.“ Most gun control activists focus in isolation on the beginning of the amendment where the founders wrote that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. They then try to argue that only the military or the National Guard should have access to guns, not individuals. In so arguing, however, they completely ignore the last part of the Second Amendment, which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The founders obviously envisioned that the people would keep and use firearms to protect themselves and their country. Unfortunately many politicians don’t see it that way. Yet, the Supreme Court has struck down firearm bans again and again. The 2008 Supreme Court case, District of Columbia vs. Heller,

Gun Control is very controversial many people believe that there is nothing wrong with the gun control laws in place right now. The Republican Party and The Democratic Party has different views on Gun Control. Many tragedies have occurred such as school and mass shootings. This year gun-related shootings have increased. The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms which can be interpreted differently by others. Specifically, the 2nd 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. Gun Control Laws should be strict throughout all states in order to insure the safety of others.

Lately, as a nation, it seems more than a month can’t go by without hearing an incident on national news concerning a shooting. Every shooting that occurs is gaining the national media spotlight. This is prompting leaders and politicians around the country to call for further gun control to answer this current epidemic. Creating new gun laws are not the answer. This only creates extra problems with law-abiding citizens obtaining a firearm and infringing on their second amendment right of the United States Constitution, which 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 second amendment may be viewed from different points or have various interpretations; this amendment gives law-abiding citizens of this country the right to own a firearm and regardless of what criminal acts others commit, restricting or banning firearms shouldn’t be the first item that gets attacked when tackling this issue.

One of the biggest debates concerning gun control is what the Constitution has to say about it. The second amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states that citizens have the right to bear arms. This means

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

Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." For this reason, the gun lobby does not fight for its perceived constitutional right to keep and bear arms before the Supreme Court, but in Congress. Interestingly, even interpreting an individual right in the 2nd Amendment presents the gun lobby with some thorny problems, like the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons.