Research Paper Weapons have always distinguished mankind from animals. Animals use their resources and instincts for survival, while a man relies on weapons to bring about destruction. Guns give man the sense of power and control over nature, however, they are no empowerment, longer used for hunting, but instead are involved in cases of domestic violence, mass shootings and at blame for the loss of lives of innocent children. We cannot solely blame the gun owner, although they are at much fault themselves. We must also find culpability in the individual who sold the weapons. Whether this was obtained in legal or illegal circumstances, it does not change that fact that we need to create regulations on automatic weapons.Weapons like everything else, should have limits. For example a person cannot have more than 2-3 dogs or they will be cited. Another example is that although we have freedom of speech, we can not yell fire in a crowded room where there is no fire; there are limits to our free speech. Why do we have limits on everything else but weapons, does human life no longer have value. We have …show more content…
However, there's too much freedom in regards to gun control. The second amendment clearly states that the need for arms is only necessary in case of a militia to form. We as a country are no longer in the need of a militia since we are not in the wild west (constitution amend 2). Another valid argument that if we were ever in a deficit of soldiers we would draft them like it happened in the Vietnam war. The second amendment says that we have the right to bear arms, but it never specifies their intentions. Although this is true, there is doubt that the founding fathers thought that there was a need to specify which weapons we could possess and who they could be issued to. The intention of the second amendment was to protect ourselves not to destroy one
On December 15, 1791, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The bill was approved by three-fourths of the United States. The 2nd Amendment was created, to provide citizens of the U.S. a form of private protection. However due to the increase of technology along with the rise of violence in modern time, many are beginning to question if we should remove the Amendment, and only grant members within militia organizations access to this Amendments right to bear weapons.
It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our policy is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. Therefore, we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses, but the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to our capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also part of the much more general assault on the very notion that human beings are capable of moral responsibility.
The Second Amendment, "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." –James Madison, The Second Amendment. The founders of our country as well as our constitution believed that without weapons in the form of firearms, there is no freedom from the harsh rulings of a corrupt government. These founders had just been freed from the duty of war from a corrupt and harsh government, without their weapons or the weapons of the people; this country would not be where it is today.
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.” Us americans don't need to “bear arms.” Some may say that many people use them to hunt but there are many other weapons you can use to hunt with as well as protecting yourself from danger. By having the second amendment, it gives criminals the right to go out and harm people, whether it be a family member, friend, someone you walk past. Statistics say that “The U.S. has an estimated 283 million guns in civilian hands.
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."
And since the Constitution establish this as a right, the government have to ensure that citizens have access to arms powerful enough to defend themselves against a potential government tyranny. So, if I cannot afford a tank, the government has to buy one for me. Thus, the Second Amendment is not a valid argument as Hamilton and Jefferson did not foresee a time when governments would have weapons powerful enough to eliminate the human species. Bearing arms was also a collective right for militias, not an individual one for
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states that, “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. " Some people who advocate for the stronger gun control and extremists who go as far to claim that all guns should be illegal dwell on the part that talks about gun rights in relation to the militia. In a court case dating back to 1939, the Supreme Court ruled that because “the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument” (United States V. Miller, 1939).
As American subjects, we have a bigger number of rights and flexibilities than whatever other gathering of individuals on the planet. The originators of this nation built up these flexibilities since they had beforehand lived in nations where the general population did not have the same number of rights. One of these rights is expressed in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which announces "the privilege of the general population to keep and remain battle ready, might not be encroached. " But rather throughout the years different laws and directions have encroached upon this privilege. The explanations behind these laws are to get the firearms that cause wrongdoing and wounds off the lanes.
Should America Have Better Gun Control? Why do we keep waiting? It seems that our lives revolves around guns. Should we keep allowing this to continue? Over the course of history most deaths are caused by guns.
Assault weapons are a right that has been protected by the Second Amendment and taking that away would violate Americans
According to www.debates.org, there are two sides to the issue and many opinions on gun safety. The side that wants gun restrictions say “ I see everybody keeps saying "2nd Amendment" this, "2nd Amendment" that. You're looking at something that was adopted in 1791. Ladies and gentlemen... we live in the 21st century, it should be about time that we do something about old rules.
The second amendment was not just meant for the people to just own firearms. The second amendment was made so that the people have a right to a militia, and guns, if a tyrannical government took over. The constitution also states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State... ”(US Const. amend.
But the concept that the more weapons, the more secure America is, has shaped our nation since the formation of the Second Amendment and continues to be the factor inhibiting stricter gun control laws. According to Global Research, “In the late eighteenth century, the meaning of ‘bearing’ arms also referred to a citizen being part of a militia or army. It didn’t mean that an individual had the right to possess whatever number of high-capacity killing machines that he or she might want.”
For other purposes, such as responding to sudden invasions or other emergencies, the government could rely on a militia that consisted of ordinary civilians who supplied their own weapons and received some part-time, unpaid military training.” This explanation brings me to my next point of what the Second Amendment protects citizens from. As described in the quote, armed citizens constitute a militia that defends our nation from foreign forces and other emergencies in our country. If the government continues to regulate the type of firearms the people of America possess it would be put Americans at a disadvantage because invaders would have a significant advantage over the American people which essentially defeats one of the main purposes of
The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the U.S. Constitution did a break down on what the whole Second Amendment really means. The militia clause, the Articles of Confederation said that the states should have militias, but made no mention of individual gun ownership. Sure there was a reason why guns were really included in the Constitution, its because hunting was an important source of food for so many people and of course personal protection. There really wasn’t any political motivations for ensuring gun rights, the Americans themselves mistrusted the armies. It makes me wonder why of all things, that Americans wouldn’t trust their own armies.