Annotated Bibliography On Gun Control

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 NRA argues that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees individuals the right to own and carry guns.   They are concerned that federal regulations will continue to increase until owning a handgun will be difficult to achieve, infringing on their Constitutional rights.   They also argue that if law-abiding citizens have guns, they are safer from criminals, bringing crime rates down.

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights was planned and sent to the states, and were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification (three-fourths of the States) on December 15, 1791.

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.

In December 1791, the Second Amendment was made: The Second Amendment offers “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep arms, and shall not be infringed.” This basically means United States gives the right to its residents to keep arms, and it guaranteed individuals the right to possess arms for their own personal defense. In the past few decades there been thousands of pages that are written seeking to uncover the meaning of the “the people,” and “bear arms,” have been strongly debated.

After 9/11, Netanyahu argued against regarding basic liberties such free speech and the right to bear arms as absolutes. In modern western society, we have rights, such as freedom of speech, and in some countries, the right to bear arms. In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Netanyahu argues that these rights are not universal to everybody. We need to set limits as to how far these rights can take us and suspend these rights for some people, because not everybody deserves to be granted these rights. At times when we are under threat from terrorism, we need to reduce freedom of speech and the second amendment in order to protect ourselves. There are also people who do not deserve these rights at all, because they will use them in order to further the terrorists’ agenda. Freedom of speech will encourage people to convince others that terrorist acts are acceptable, and will further convince people to join terrorist organizations and participate in terrorist acts.

America needs to institute, and initiate gun control laws throughout the entire nation. But not everybody who inhabits the United States believes in regulating arms. Those who are against establishing gun laws argue that gun control directly infringes upon their “right to bear arms” granted to them by the 2nd Amendment. Anti gun control supporters, such as the National Rifle Association, often claim that the act of regulating guns is a sufficient reason why such an Amendment was introduced in the constitution; to protect themselves from any and all forms of violation of civil liberties and freedom. Supporters of anti gun laws are unwilling to welcome any interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that do not match up “word for word,” as was written in the Bill of Rights.

Mass shootings are increasing in the United States, and gun control advocates are seizing the opportunity to push anti-gun legislation to deter gun violence in America. Guns and the Second Amendment have come to the forefront of political rhetoric, leading to conflicting views between lawmakers on the future of gun legislation. Republican lawmakers are encouraging law abiding citizens to acquire firearms and to defend themselves against acts of violence by criminals. On the contrary, Democratic lawmakers believe the only way to slow gun violence in the United States is to remove guns from society. While certain politicians believe strict gun laws would protect the American people, the proposed policies would make our nation more vulnerable

Frates, Chris. “The Gun Debate Isn’t Over Yet.” National Journal (2013): Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Web. 31 Oct. 2013.

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).

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

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 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.

Does the Second Amendment protect the right to own and operate heavy and destructive military-grade firearm to civilians while openly carrying them around in the public, but that doesn't answer the question nor does it give a descriptive meaning to what it means. It's an ungrammatical sentence, it refers to militias that don't even exist anymore and has been the subject of an intense controversy. The Second Amendment has two parts, the first part talking about state militias saying that militias are a necessary part of national defense and the second part deals with the right to “bear arms”(Gun Control), the question of how the two relate is something that is still debated.

Their opinion contradicts the opinion of some in saying that the right to have a weapon makes a society free.