Throughout history, any topic related to guns means a plethora of problems. One of the most controversial issues our nation faces today is gun control laws. This controversy has been created due to the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states the right of citizens to bear arms; “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” (Cornell Law School). Anti-gun control laws believe that the amendment guarantees the right to bear any kind of firearms. On the other hand, we have does that believe that more controls laws should be implemented since the 2nd amendment was for the right of States to have an armed militia during wartime.
Before Jefferson entered the presidential office he was a states rights supporter and when the tax on whiskey was placed he opposed it, saying “The first error was to admit it by the Constitution.” (Doc A). He didn’t like the constitution because of the fact that it would make central government stronger. When the alien act was passed he was opposed to it and said that the central government should only have a set of specific purposes and the leftover purposes should be left to the states individually. (Doc B) Determining the amount of time it takes to be a citizen, and the ability to jail people opposing the government was too much power to Jefferson. When he came into office he realized the necessity for more central power and took more matters into his own hands, he had become a loose constructionist.
The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of 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” (US Const. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports.
Chances are that there will be a negative outcome, whether it’s death or simply the loss of property. Incidents like these and many more suggest that some form of gun laws need to stay in place in order to protect those who feel threatened. The first reason why the Second Amendment should not be abolished is because we, as citizens have the right to defend ourselves. Word for word, 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” (Constitute). That means that citizens have the right to own a firearm to defend from the government and/or criminals.
Through the system of checks and balances it states “The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. But it also makes the president commander in chief of the armed forces.” (Glass). Because of this regulation of power the president is unable to make any rash decisions on his own without the approval of Congress which provides grand safety to the people. If the executive branch were to come to decisions without being monitored by the legislative and judicial branch the U.S. government would function as a dictatorship where no one has a say in
They believe that after the traumatic event that caused them the have this pain that something must be done to ban all firearms regardless of who uses them. Everyone fall on this spectrum and that is the issue no one can be one hundred percent right meaning someone will be unhappy with the result. From constitution being first ratified to today the idea of gun control has still existed. Gun control is the regulation of guns through their purchasing, owning, and use. As such starting with the second amendment of the United States constitution which says, “A well regulated Militia, […and] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
Former Court Justice John Paul Stevens who served on the Supreme Court argues regarding amending the Constitution to promote democracy and rights (Posner, Slate.com). However, enacting new amendments to the Constitution is highly impossible today due to the rules established under Article V. Article V calls for an amendment to be proposed by two-thirds majority vote in the Senate and in the House or through a convention called in by the Congress after a request from the two-thirds votes by the states (Posner, Slate.com). This serves to be the first part of the amendment process if an amendment succeeds in the first stage it moves on to the second stage. Which requires three-quarters of votes from the 50 states in order to be enacted as an official amendment (Posner, Slate.com). The framers decided on the strict enforcement of Article V, as they believed in the ideology of stability, which would allow the government to function properly.
The United States was founded because the colonists in America desired freedom from the repressive British government. As the reason of independence was freedom, the United States introduced a constitution which guaranteed it. Most of them became the foundation of modern democracy, such as the popular election system, the freedom of the press, and the republicanism. Within these freedoms, the constitution declared in Amendment II that there was a freedom to carry firearms. As the United States progressed into the late 20th century, the controversy of the right to bear arms became a hotter issue, and the citizens in the U.S still didn’t make a decisive decision.
Even if we assume, however, that Hobbes’ state of nature is true, it still would not justify obeying a tyrannical government. Having to live under a tyrannical government that does not protect one’s rights is in no way better than having to compete with other people for survival. In competing with other people, at least everyone is on equal footing. However, when competing against a government, then there is a power imbalance and the government can use its power to oppress the people. Therefore, the people should have the right to rebel against such a government.
Plays on an event that would lead to once again, a reduction of state powers. Robert Yates contends that “whatever government we adopt, it ought to be a free one; that it should be so framed as to secure the liberty of the citizens of America, and such a one to admit of a full, fair, and equal representation of the people.” This helped to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. The amendments would put the anti-federalist at ease. It would ensure that the government would not be able to restrict the people. Robert Yates also added that the language needed to be less ambiguous.
Madison began discussing the most famous Federalist papers by saying that one of the most grounded contentions for the Constitution is the way that it sets up an administration well-appointed for controlling the violence and harm created by factions. Madison characterizes groups as gatherings of individuals who assemble to secure and advance their exceptional monetary hobbies and political feelings. According to the text, Madison has only two ways to control a faction. The first was to remove its reasons and the second way was to control its outcomes. The first was did not seem plausible but there were two ways to remove its reasons of a faction, to destroy liberty or give every citizen the same opinions, and etc.
This document was directed towards the Federalist by the antifederalist to explain a possible problem of the checks and balances system, after the drafting of the constitution and awaiting approval. The Anti Federalists didn’t want what we have now,they didn’t want the federal government to have and influence over citizens’ lives, they didn’t want the govt to in any way resemble a monarchy because they had just escaped from the corrupt monarchy. They believed that if the power in the country occupied in the people of the various states, then their vision would have a chance of success. Likewise, the Anti Federalist thought there was no bill of rights, so they disliked the constitution. Every constitution should have one for the people, and the government shouldn’t refuse to give on, as shown on Document E. The Letter to James Madison, Objections to the Constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson to explain what he disliked about the constitution to one of the writings, after the constitution was drafted and were awaiting ratification.
This is evident in document A, where it shows you a Venn diagram of which powers are given to the states and which powers are given to the federal government. For one thing, this shows how “a double security arises to the rights of the people”, which means that when the power is distributed between the states and the federal government, neither is able to gain absolute power over the country. Federalism also comes in handy by specifying what the states get to control and what the national government gets to control, which is meant to prevent conflict between the two powers. For example, the task of declaring war is meant for the national government only. If that wasn’t specified, there would likely be a lot of cases where states declared war, and the national government had to clean up the mess.
The Constitution guarded against tyranny due to the principles of government and the Great Compromise. This argument will be proven by Federalism, Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, and the NJ and VA plans. Federalism guarded against tyranny by making sure the state and central governments can check each other to ensure neither government has total control. In Federalist Papers #51, Madison states, “the different government will each control each other, that at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.” Our government, being split into three branches, controls each other and makes sure that one branch won’t be able to gain more power. That keeps one from taking over the entire government and causing issues.
Problems came about because the government under the Articles of Confederation didn 't have enough power. States started to print their own money behind the laws back, they participated in foreign trade negotiations, and they organized their own armed forces. All of these issues led to the Constitutional Convention. Delegates wanted to divide power in the federal government. They refused to let the powers be taken over by just one man or group.