In his article, ¨So You think You Know the Second Amendment,” Jeffrey Toobin, points out the duplicity of the NRA in their quest to re-interpret the Second Amendment. Toobin emphasizes that “for more than a hundred years” the “Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well” had found that the Second Amendment “conferred on state militias a right to bear arms- but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.” Toobin poisons the well when he says, “Enter the modern National Rifle Association.” Introducing a paragraph of critical comments about the group identifies this as an unwelcome appearance of the NRA. This suggests that the NRA’s participation in the debate is likely to be unwelcome and disruptive. Another example of propaganda …show more content…
Toobins says that the N.R.A uses this as a political leverage to draw the public’s attention away from the actually meaning of the Second Amendment. This is such a general and unbacked claim cause many who support the NRA support the idea that the Second Amendment is an individual right. However who says that Jeffrey Toobin stand on the Second Amendment is the same viewpoint as our founding fathers? Based on Evaluating Internet Sources, Jeffrey Toobin’s article, “So You Think You Know the Second Amendment,” is credible, unbiased and accurate. Jeffrey Toobin has been a staff writer at The New Yorker, senior legal analyst for CNN, worked for ABC News, and he received an Emmy Award for his coverage of the Elián González case. Toobin has written Profiles of the Supreme Court Justices and nearly every major legal controversy and trial of the past two decades. He is credible to be the first to disclose the plans of O. J. Simpson’s defense team to accuse Mark Fuhrman of planting evidence and to play “the race card.” Before writing high profiles, he is known to be unbiased for serving as an Assistant United States Attorney in Brooklyn and currently writes for The New Yorker. This is a weekly …show more content…
Based on the evaluation of “Universal Background Checks Mean Gun Registration, Gun Bans and Confiscation” by Wayne LaPierre it is incredible, biased, and inaccurate. Wayne LaPierre “incorrectly claimed Obama pulled a bait-and-switch, promising during the campaign not to take away anyone’s guns, but now supporting an assault weapons ban. Obama is not now seeking to take away anyone’s existing guns, and he has for years consistently supported a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.” This shows that LaPierre is only trying to rally support and gun activists to deny any gun control laws. With the facts shown, “Obama has consistently supported reinstatement of an assault weapons ban such as the one Feinstein is now proposing — even as he was vowing not to take away anyone’s guns. When he made his most definitive statement about not taking away people’s guns during the 2008 campaign, Obama added that “there are some common-sense gun safety laws that I believe in.”” . LaPierre maintains that background checks are equivalent to gun bans and gun confiscation. According to “The Australia Gun Control Fallacy” by Varad Mehta Australia doesn’t have a bill of rights, so their legislators have more say for their individual rights than ours. “Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the Second Amendment, but the fourth and
“The lobbying arm of the NRA” was established as members believed that, in order to protect their right to bear arms, they had to directly impact decision-making in Washington (NRA-ILA n.d.). Due to the contemporary debate of whether the number of gun regulations should increase, the Institute has retained the media’s spotlight since 2008 because of their prominent public influence, especially during the former presidency of Barack
According to Bernie Sanders, "Gun control legislation should ultimately fall on individual states, except instant background checks to prevent firearms from finding their way into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and a federal ban on assault weapons. "(Page 2). But, this is a good way to prevent people from getting killed by someone who does not use firearms for the right reason. Some people have guns for hunting and protection. We could not stop someone from using guns for hunting if that's what they are into.
Recently, the second amendment, the right to bear arms, has been under intense scrutiny and misinterpretation of this amendment is a growing problem spreading
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 is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause stated “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century as properly but, not overly regulated (Roleff 69).
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
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 is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause states “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century, as properly but not overly regulated (Roleff 69).
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
Proponents of more gun control laws believe that the Second Amendment was intended exclusively for militias, that gun restrictions have always existed, and that gun regulations would prevent criminals from possessing firearms. However, Opponents claim that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns, that guns are needed for self-defense, and that gun ownership helps to dissuade crime. Because of this obvious difference, proponents of stricter firearm regulation demand more laws to help prevent mass shooting, and want reform in the area of background checks. Meanwhile, opponents of gun laws often accuse the proponents of manipulating a mass tragedy in order to further strengthen their fight. Gun ownership has been a tradition within the united states since before the country itself was formed.
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.
The Gun Control Debate In recent years, there’s not many topics on the political spectrum that aren’t absolutely polarizing. This essay will attempt to show each side’s generalized opinions, and find flaws in each of their arguments, as every ethical argument has flaws. Analyzing each side will help anyone understand their own opinions better, because without the demonization of the opposite party, ethics get much more difficult. Gun control is everywhere in the news right now, as three months into the year, the country has had12 school shootings in 2018. Exploring the ethics of gun control can get messy and emotional, but it’s important to understand all sides of a subject.
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
India Ross Mr. Jones AP US Government 30 September 2014 Jeffery Toobin's The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, takes the time to take us inside the Supreme Court, in which is known as one of the most secretive bodies of the government. This specific book The Nine creates connections and images by beginning with covering basic information around the Supreme Court in which for an example after the vote of Roe v. Wade 1973 was an illustration of a liberal judicial vote. Also, according to article "Jeffery Toobin's The Nine-- Part 1" it states that "drawing heavily on interviews with some (unnamed) justices and lots of law clerks, Toobin aims to provide an insider's account of the Supreme Court over the past two decades." Jeffery
Updating the Amendment 2.0 The right to bear arms has been a favoured constitutional law since its establishment in 1791, but as more gun related violence and accidents occur, there has been increasing debate on whether or not guns should be banned in the US altogether, and if not, what regulations should be required for the purchase and handling of them. While guns should not be completely banned from the country, the rules and regulations of gun laws should be tightened. In the 2nd amendment, it clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While this statement still holds true, the evolution of firearms and how they have become more dangerous throughout the years is a clear sign of why the laws should be changed.
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.
Majority of the people who oppose gun control believe that it violates the Second Amendment. The Revere Journal says that “In terms of the substance of the Second Amendment, the notion of a militia has no practical meaning today relative to what that term meant in the late 18th century. We are long past the days when farmers left the fields to become de facto soldiers, or when posses were rounded up to chase outlaws, or when settlers were on their own in a hostile environment. Some pretend that a lifestyle that no longer exists still has meaning in the America of the 21st century.” The people that agree on needing strict gun control laws will find a stronger connection to this image compared to the people who oppose