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
Constitution, the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, has been the most publicly contentious of late. With the spate of mass shooting tragedies that made headlines in the past year, the meaning and intentions of the Second Amendment is once again being openly debated. As Voice of America reports, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure the protected basic rights, including the right to bear arms, that they enjoyed as Englishmen. In fact, English laws even required that men practice using their firearms should they ever be called to defend the nation
Recently, the second amendment, the right to bear arms, has been under intense scrutiny and misinterpretation of this amendment is a growing problem spreading
After all the arguing, the ratification process was in full force. The responsive argument, according to Vandercoy, widely made was that Congress might be able to confine the existing militia force, all armed citizens, to a select militia made up of a small segment of the population. The delegates were trying to eliminate the possibility that game laws, used effectively in England at different points to disarm the population, would not produce a similar result in America. He summarizes the state ratification process; three states ratified while expressing their understanding that the people had a right to bear arms, and two states refused to ratify until individual rights were recognized as amendments.
The topic of gun control and firearm regulation has been subject to heated debate for a long while. Both sides have potent arguments, however the core of this issue ultimately boils down to the constitution itself. More specifically the second amendment. This argument quickly becomes quite complicated because gun control and firearm regulation concerns not only the right of citizens, but more importantly the safety of citizens. The second amendment helps to guarantee an imperative right belonging to all citizens.
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 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. In Russell’s article, she describes an event that occurred when she and her husband were traveling across the United States. They stopped at a motel for the evening and were ambushed by a deranged, armed man inside their motel room.
Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. Many citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would reduce the threat of crime. People have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting and recreational activity. With the recent events involving firearms and mass shootings, people are skeptical whether to increase or decrease gun laws. Americans have a constitutional right to own handguns and stricter laws and licensing will not effectively save lives.
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).
Imagine enjoying a nice party at your local cabana, only for you to hear a loud bang, and look over to see your friend lying on the ground, dead. This problem you are facing is known as gun control, and is a issue that has faced the U.S for many years. gun control is the debate on whether or not laws around guns should be tightened or not. Today, I will prove to you what gun control is, who is affected by it, and what we can do to solve it. Gun control is a problem that tends to occur very often in the past few years, and is affecting the U.S very badly.
The Second amendment is one that allows all americans to carry guns. Because of the school shootings and other massacres people are saying that they want to have gun restrictions. The way that they are wanting to just act like everything will be ok when they ban guns is almost a denile. Even if they make guns completely illegal people who have the desire to kill someone will still be able to do so if they wish. The gun bans are only occurring in the states not across the
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
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.
Gun Control Gun control has become a polarizing and controversial issue around the globe. There have been many reported issues of mass shootings both in schools and in the public, making it a hot button issue. Proponents argue that, if the government strictly controls the ownership of guns, such tragedies can be prevented. Most Americans have an obsession with guns because the law allows them to do so. Therefore, they are always ready to scoff at anyone trying to control gun ownership.
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
