Mcdonald V. Chicago Case Study

In the past, the major gun control legislations that have been put into effect have not stopped people from obtaining firearms (Gun Control.) There have also been cases in the past where cities have attempted to ban handguns. After the ban was put into effect, murder rates tended to rise instead of drop, unlike what most people might assume. Crime rates and violence also skyrocketed after the bans were put into effect. Another problem with taking guns away, or banning them, is that the government cannot expect everyone to abide by the laws.

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.

Banning Guns Will Endanger Law-Abiding Citizens Gun control has been an idea since the 1800s, Gun regulations can be good and bad. History has shown that banning firearms from the populace led to disaster and civil unrest. ¨We the People¨ in the United States are very divided when it comes to dealing with gun control and regulations for gun ownership. Banning guns increase fatalities, decreases personal protection and safety, and prohibits citizens from their constitutional rights.

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

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.

The truth is the second amendment or the right to bear arms is still in place to protect us from being at the mercy of a dictator. In fact Piers Morgan stated “The second Merrell3 amendment isn’t there for duck hunting, it’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs, 1776 will commence again if you try to take away our firearms. (Gun control 2016)” Some Americans may also take freedom of religion for granted. Only having one religion would be simple, but what Americans do not realize is that countries that do only have one religion normally have a dictator.

Guns are crucial in American society. This is something many advocates of the 2nd Amendment and gun possession have been stating for decades. Although many believe that they have their own ideas about gun control in the US, they are not aware that their opinions are being influenced by biased media agencies. Not only is there pressure from the government, mass media cogitates their broadcasting information so that the public gets center minded by their theories, not leaving space for people to think in their own ways. An unbiased journalism is practically impossible, and this is proved and established by analyzing the truth of gun control news transmitted towards the public.

To emphasize, the Second Amendment is a American citizens right, but this privilege can be taken away if one does not abide by the laws of American society. Therefore, the Second Amendment is of great controversy in America. The federal government should not have a say about the second amendment; just uphold the law. In the event, the federal government may set Categorical Grants on gun laws for states, will we as Americans lose our Second Amendment rights, this is what many citizens in American society are concerned about. Coupled with, sometimes it is not about who is right, it is about what is best for the greater good of American citizens.

I found research showing that gun control laws in their current form, are ineffective; that citizens with guns can and do discourage criminals, and that as a result, guns can afford normal citizens with the proper training a way to defend themselves. According The Chicago Tribune, there were 2966 criminal shootings in Chicago in 2015 despite the bannings of assault weapons, gun shops, and shooting ranges. This compares to 2185 criminal shootings in 2013, before gun control was enacted. The rise

The second amendment is needed in the society that we live in today. It would cause a lot of trouble if people tried to amend the second amendment. I understand that the trajectory for the right to bear arm is becoming narrow and people are starting to see an issue with it. But, I believe that there are different things that can be enforced that will prevent some of these issues. Thomas Jefferson stated, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) Facts: Mr. Otis McDonald, a denizen of Chicago, wanted to get a handgun for the purpose of self-defense. McDonald had lived in that particular Chicago neighborhood for several decades, and his decision to purchase a firearm was predicated upon his increasing frustration with the rising crimes rates of that neighborhood. He had even in fact been the victim of thefts and break-ins on numerous occasions. Legally, he already owned rifles and shotguns.

The Second Amendment is a frequently debated topic in today’s society. 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.” The Second Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 when the Bill of Rights were passed. The Amendment was easily accepted because of the majority consensus that the government should not have the ability to take weapons away from people. In many countries, corrupt governments use armed soldiers and other arms to control and oppress people.

As part of its strategy to enjoin the NAACP from operating, Alabama required it to reveal to the State's Attorney General the names and addresses of all the NAACP's members and agents in the state. The NAACP argued that this violated the due process clause of the 14th amendment. Verdict: Unanamous decision for the NAACP, majority opinion by John M. Harlan II. He said that “that a compelled disclosure of the NAACP's membership lists would have the effect of suppressing legal association among the group's members”.

Incorporation Doctrine and McDonald v. Chicago The McDonald v. Chicago case was a crucial decision by the Supreme Court regarding the 2nd Amendment and state law. This case is interesting for a couple of reasons in my opinion. Firstly, the case revolves around legislation of the 2nd Amendment which is a right held dear to myself and many other Americans. Secondly, the case gives an example of the incorporation doctrine being fully applied.

If a person from 1975 through to the present and see black and white people are studying in the same school and sitting together, the person might doubt that what he saw. “The case Brown v. Board of education happened on May 17, 1954 in the United States. Before this case, Plessy v. Ferguson case was adopted by the supreme court at 1896, which was segregation not violated the fourteenth amendment so that separate race is equal in law.” (Duignan) Even though Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery and gave black people the right to vote after he became the president of the United States in 1861, it does not lead to the equal between white and black at that moment.