When debating the wisdom of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the media tends to start from the presumption that the question is purely scientific, and that the answers can — and should — be derived from statistical analyses and relentless experimentation. This approach is mistaken. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured “data journalism,” but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on which this country was founded. It must be protected as such. The Declaration of Independence presumes that all men enjoy certain inalienable rights, among them “life” and “liberty.” Practically speaking, at both the state level (as a bulwark against tyranny) and at the individual
Our second amendment right has been affecting Americans year after year and continues to influence many people about their personal freedoms. I am writing this paper targeting Americans, specifically gun owning ones, that have been affected by the second amendment or feel passionate about their right to bear arms openly. I am targeting these people who do not want to give up their rights, but are willing enough to read my paper. By the end of this essay I want my readers to be aware of the dangers that open carry might cause and for them to accept the price that it puts on their personal freedom.
A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America Latasha Custis The world today is relatively chaotic, but the book A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, written by Saul Cornell provides an in depth version of gun laws and the journey in which it assumed form as the second amendment. Cornell a graduate of the University of Sussex, Amherst College, B.A., and the University of Pennsylvania, M.A went on to become a professor and writer. He has instructed students in history since 1986 thru 1995.
The topic of gun control and firearm regulation has been subject to heated debate for a long while. Both sides have potent arguments, however the core of this issue ultimately boils down to the constitution itself. More specifically the second amendment. This argument quickly becomes quite complicated because gun control and firearm regulation concerns not only the right of citizens, but more importantly the safety of citizens. The second amendment helps to guarantee an imperative right belonging to all citizens.
Today I will be talking about one of the Amendments that I choose and it was the second amendment. The second amendment is “The Right To Keep and Bear Arms” I will give you three reasons on this to make you choose that there should be the second amendment. My reasons are self defense,hunting and practicing. Let 's start with my first reason Self Defense. What I mean by this is that you can defend yourself if you need to in a bad situation.
Last but not least, the famous Second Amendment. Here is what it is about: “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”. Pro-gun supporters love to cite the Second Amendment as a proof that it is their right to carry guns in order to rise up against a tyrannical government. However, they are only manipulating the original intent of the Second Amendment for their own profit. Back in the days, the United States had no standing federal army because the founders were afraid of a national standing army consolidating power and the states were expected to sustain a state militia in order to contribute to the national defence.
The First Amendment, Freedom of Speech could probably be considered the most powerful amendments of the Constitution. If we didn’t have this right, many of our ideas and beliefs would not be real today. All American citizens have the right to talk about what’s on their minds and say what they believe in. As Derek Bok mentions in his essay and unfortunately for people who disagree, With the Supreme Court’s rulings, the demonstration of these flags clearly falls within the protection of the free-speech clause of the First Amendment and that they can in no way be banned merely because they may seem offensive or may someone else’s feelings. “These rulings apply to all agencies of government, including public universities”.
When the founding fathers established the government of America, it is clear that they had the intent of establishing a government that valued principles such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and had a strong separation of powers. This is clear when we read the Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, and the Constitution. But does our current government value those same principles? I am going to argue that, no, it does not. If the intent of the founders was followed today, the government would be neither neglecting the First and Fourth Amendments, nor slowly degrading the separation of powers to the extent it has in the past 100 years.
Mark Lichtenberg Mr.Giddens Government August 8 2015 The First Amendment The first amendment of the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment guarantees against the government invading key personal freedoms that are the freedom of religion, the freedom of the press, free expression, freedom of association, and the freedom of assembly. Without the first amendment religious minorities could be prosecuted, the government could establish a national religion, protestors could be silenced, the press would not be allowed to criticize the government
For advocates of the second amendment, the right to bear arms applies to all Americans for self-protection against dangerous criminals. Criminals will always have access to weapons, therefore citizens need self-protection using firearms. John Lott, in “More Guns, Less Crime,” explains that crime fell by 10 percent in Texas in the year after a law had passed letting citizens carry weapons ( Martin 10). This evidence shows that if more citizens were armed for example, the citizens in Texas, less crime would occur in America. Although those in favor of the second amendment believe that arms are used in self-protection, they also believe it is an individual right and oppose strict gun control laws as
What does the second amendment mean to me? The second amendment, what exactly is it? what exactly does it say?, Most of us know what the constitution and the bill of rights is, because we learn about them in school, but we only learn the basics of what they mean and honestly we were all just going through the motions of being a good student. We were never asked what they actually mean to us personally or we never even thought about the personal effects they have on us until now.
As Hobbes (1998) writes, “to seek peace and follow it” is the fundamental law of nature, a goal that we should aspire toward against our natural inclination toward conflict and war (p. 87). Weak gun control regulations do not enforce this law of nature. Having dangerous firearms in the hands of people who either intend to do harm or who simply aren’t qualified to handle them threatens the sense of security for the entire nation. It is important to acknowledge here that by submitting to stricter gun control regulations, the American people are being asked to graciously surrender to a limitation on their freedom, and one which they have enjoyed for so long. With that thought in mind, we must remind those who have concerns about stricter gun control that this is a societal sacrifice.
The First Amendment has five parts to it; freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. This amendment was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and it was ratified by the states on December 15, 1791. The Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Overall, the First Amendment protects one’s right to express themselves in America. What this means is that Congress cannot establish a nationwide religion, and that the people have the right to speak and write freely.
The question on whether the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. should be changed or not has become a widely discussed and argued topic as of recent, due to recurring incidents of shootings occurring on U.S. soil by its own inhabitants. While many would be in support of the right to bear arms, including myself, I do believe that the current gun laws need to be made more restrictive than they are in their current state, for the sake of the country and the safety of its people. I’m well aware that I am not a U.S. citizen and that I have no say in what decisions are made there regarding the country’s constitution, but I feel that what I have to say is shared by many of America’s people and that it’s not only Americans that are affected by guns but also those who are visiting the country from abroad. There are many problems regarding America’s very unrestrictive gun laws at present, whether it’s the fact that there is no federal minimum age for possession of a long gun, or the fact that individuals don’t
A weapon in the wrongs hands is the maximum danger humanity can face. Nowadays, violence and delinquency in society are viewed as the maximum problem solver. Humanity is full of chaos; hate and envy seize our souls. Guns are the ultimate security for some citizens but for others, these add to a feeling of defenselessness. Throughout history, any topic related to guns means a plethora of problems.