It 's ironic that she says she changed her position after doing research, because virtually everything she says is uneducated on the second amendment. Two hundred years of Supreme Court jurisprudence affirms that the right to bear arms is a collective right, modified by the militia clause, NOT an individual right. http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=jcred The notion of an individual right to bear arms only appeared in Supreme Court law in 2010 in the Heller decision, which has been roundly criticized. The attached article is from a conservative legal scholar, who says that the decision violates conservative law by forcing legislation through the court. In other words, the court made up new law rather than respecting the constitution as
So they tried with all of their power to stop Gura from pursuing the case, however Gura was determined to convince the court. At first the NRA tried to hijack his case and replace him with their own lawyer, which failed leading the NRA to lobby congress to pass a law which would overturn the D.C. gun laws rendering Gura’s case moot. The NRA knew that if Gura were to lose and the court made the decision that the second amendment didn’t protect individual’s rights to bear arms they would lose legal ground which they had fought so hard over. During February of 2003 Gura was able to finish the complaint he would file with the federal trial court in Washington. It was actually a rather short complaint, consisting of only a few pages with no extraneous issues or “trap doors.” His argument was that “the second amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to possess a functional personal firearm,” His choice for the lead plaintiff was a woman by the name of Shelly Parker who had fought drug dealers in her Capitol Hill neighborhood.
Repealing Gun Control Firearms are a pretty big deal. The Second Amendment has been debated for centuries. Many believe our forefathers had set this for militias and not for individual rights, but the other amendments are for individual’s rights. The right to bear arms in the Second Amendment was written by men who started our country by using their firearms against a government of tyranny. Many people have challenged the Second Amendment against the individual rights of the people of the United States; however, the Supreme Court has upheld the Second Amendment rights of individuals against these challenges.
Gun Control Are you a person that has, or has ever had possession of a gun? People believe that the United States of America should have gun control. I do not believe that. I believe people should have the right to posses, and bear arms. The Second Amendment of the Constitution clearly 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.” Humans having ownership of a gun is a American tradition, thus is older than the country itself, and the second amendment protects this tradition.
“Insurance will cover you if your home burns down in an electrical fire, but it will not cover you if you burn down your own house, and you cannot insure yourself for arson,” said Robert P. Hartwig, Garen Wintemute had some very good points to back up his belief. He said “An estimated 478,422 firearm-related violent crimes occurred in 2011, including 11,101 homicides.” That 's a really good way to start of your statement. Is with a fact, and sounding strong. Another thing Wintemute did to make his article good is give his audience examples to support him. For example, he explains the process to get a gun and how it works.
The Gun Debate The second Amendment guarantees that “A well-regulated Militia,being necessary to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In the article, “The Gun Debate” it states that President Obama thinks the gun laws do not need to be increased. This is what he says, “No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.” I believe that this is true because, murder is already illegal, so there is no point in making more laws for the people that chose not to pay attention to them. In the article it also says that most killers are dealing with mental problems or illnesses. A gun range owner, Scott Ostrosky says, “A gun did not kill those children. A
W. Bush said “Law enforcement officials cannot place themselves above the law that they are sworn to defend.” OTHER - The police are, and always haves been, the protectors of our freedoms- we need non corrupt officers to be able to do that - It is such a big issue, that October 22 has been named the National Anti Police Brutality Day - Some policy officers take advantage of the power/authority they have - In many cases citizens have not taken legal action against the corrupted police which is necessary for an overall end to the brutality to be achieved - The law states that we are innocent until proven guilty not guilty until proven innocent - Cops receive an unfair favorable treatment when it comes to not getting indicted - Police generally believe and act as if they are above the law COUNTERS - Counter argument 1: but the police are our authority and they are just trying to protect us? They are using excessive force when it is unnecessary and this is more harmful than
United States Supreme Court ruled in 2008 and 2010 that the reference to militia is just an explanation of why Congress ratified the amendment (civil-rights.lawyers.com). A human right is to bear arms, it states it in the second amendment. There are multiple reasons why you should be able to own a gun. Protection and hunting are two big reasons. Also, people kill people, not guns.
At the campaign rally in Burlington, Vermont, in January 2016, Trump claimed that mass shootings in areas such as San Bernardino, Chattanooga, and Orlando could have been prevented if the victims “had guns on the other side.” The Second Amendment grants Americans the right to bear arms, which allows them to protect themselves. This freedom to use guns is a privilege, but one with many consequences. Mass shootings such as the Orlando shooting, which killed 63 people and wounded 75, may have very well been prevented if the victims were armed. However, that’s not the issue. The issue is that America has become a country where people must anticipate random acts of violence and be prepared to defend themselves.
People believe that this doesn’t mean anything in today’s standards, they believe the reason this bill was made was to defend and fight against the English. When really it’s about the people being able to fight back against a government that is exercising power in an arbitrary way. Our government today has not been stopped by the second amendment, they are out of control. They have infringed upon gun rights and instituted hundreds of federal gun