Do You Agree With The Second Amendment

The articles I chose to compare and contrast were, “Scrutinizing the Second Amendment” by Adam Winkler and “Nothing to debate: Second Amendment, legal gun in my purse saved our lives” by Lynne Russell. While there was not much to compare, aside from the articles both relating to the Second Amendment, it was quite obvious that one article was strictly opinionated, while the other was a solid analysis.

The Second Amendment is very important amendment. There are many different positions on the second amendment. My position on the amendment is that I think you should be able to own a gun with having experience with shooting that gun. Having said so many people think that guns are dangerous and should be banned. But in all reality guns are not the problem because in Chicago the have very strict gun control but yet have the most crime rate in America right now. Making it to where people can’t have gun honestly makes them want them even more. For instance when a mother tells a child then can’t do something that makes them want to do it even more than before, so therefore why do they think making laws about guns will make the crime go down. Honestly

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. In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided.

The second amendment of the Bill of Rights stipulates that the United States shall have a well-regulated militia. Reasoning for this is that as a free state, a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security amongst the citizens. The second amendment also provides that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. It is expressly specified that the latter right shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment protects the right of people to keep and bear arms. This amendment was a controversial among different people in the government. It was between letting the people keep their weapons or to not let the people keep their weapons. This amendment was important to the framers of the Constitution because it provided the country with a well-regulated militia. 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." Some reasons why this amendment was made are that the framers wanted adults to know how to use a weapon and to be ready to use a weapon if they were attacked. During this time, the British troops were still attempting to overtake the new land, one of the ways they did this was by attempting to take the people’s guns. There was still reason to believe that British would still attack the new country and the United States did not have a real army, so any military action needed to be responded to by

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. In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided.

The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the right to bear arms, which gives American citizens a constitutional right to own and purchase guns. It states, "A well-regulated

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms. When the Second Amendment was written it was for the right to arm oneself as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, gun advocates proclaim that guns are for the right to self-defense. Some people try to participate and uphold the law. We have seen how guns in the hands of children can cause fatal accidents and people have committed mindless crimes leading to

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. 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. Both sides have strong point, however, the safety of our children comes first, and a firearm means death in the wrong hands.

The Second Amendment protects individuals’ rights to own guns. This right has been protected since the very beginning of our country. The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the

The Second Amendment states that one has the right to bear arms. This right can be taken away from one when they do some sort of crime that goes against this and gets their right taken away from them. Around 3 million americans carry a gun with they all the time with a concealed weapons permit. That number is 20% out of the 15 million americans that have a concealed weapons permit. We should not get rid of the right to carry a concealed weapon though there are exceptions depending on the person and their history. Instead of ever getting rid of this privilege we should do through background checks on every person that registers for a concealed weapons permit. This would limit the risks of putting a weapon into the hands of someone that has harmful intentions. Doing this can’t stop everything, there are a lot of different situations where it can’t be prevented by just doing a background check. For one a person could become mentally ill and could cause harm to others.

The second amendment is probably the most controversial amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment is stated in the Bill of Rights as, “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"(“Second Amendment”) This could mean that you have the right to possess a small gun for self-defence purposes only, but the real meaning is a very controversial argument. Focusing on this amendment is important because it is a very disputed amendment still debated today. There have been many cases where the Supreme Court has had to make a decision, and most of the time it is an almost split decision.

A loose interpretation of the 2nd Amendment looks mostly at the “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”part of the 2nd Amendment, this is usually seen from a pro-gun rights supporter as an all inclusive clause which covers an individual 's right to bear arms. In contrary to gun control supporters, they see the framers setting up the 2nd Amendment as a right for individuals to bear all arms, not only for militia use,but for personal use such as hunting or sport. And any regulation that will infringe upon someone bearing arms is a violation of what the constitution guarantees for them. Having guns is right they believe to have and the way they are used can be

Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people. Gun laws have their positives and negatives, but the debate isn 't resolved yet.

The Second Amendment says, “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 rights has become the subject of intense political, social, and cultural battles for much of the last century. The pro-gun right side has asserted that the right to arms was absolute, and that any gun control laws infringed that right (Kopel, 2013). This right has been supported by the Supreme Court who has reinforced what has become the American consensus that the Second Amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, especially for self-defense, and that it is a fundamental individual