Paul Barrett wrote about a discussion whether or not we should amend the second amendment. He used the words from a retired supreme court justice Paul Stevens to help justify the points on why we should amend it. The main points that came out are that the 2nd amendment was made for militias or the military to bear arms and didn’t let the federal government regulate weapons but only left it to the state governments. The right to bear arms is essentially not an unlimited one. As the country grows older the interpretation of the 2nd amendment changes as well. With all this being said I felt like Barrett relies too much on the words of the retired justice member. It would have been better if he would have opened up his article to numerous justice members or other federal judges. However, Barrett helps bring in one of the major points why people feel and argue the reason the 2nd amendment should be amended. Matt Friedman wrote about gun control groups filing lawsuits against the NJ Attorney General in order to open up a report on smart guns to help justify the law. His article essentially talks about what actually is gun control. In New Jersey they have tried to pass …show more content…
She talks about all the important reasons why we need gun control and why it is an issue as well. One eye-popping statistic is that a majority of the worst acts of violence dealing with a gun are by people who have never actually violated the law in America before. People say that such violent gun acts are by criminals anyway. So putting a ban on all guns from law bidding citizens would have no real effect. However, it would be good if they showed a statistical chart on all the people who committed violent guns acts and break it down to if they were criminals before or if it was their first offense. The article helps bring in a different perspective on why gun control would benefit
He adds to this development by stating three intriguing and interesting facts that show that gun violence is clearly an issue in the United States in this day and age. Something that is only applicable to the website version of the article is that he even further establishes his credibility with these facts with clickable links that will bring one to the source of the fact or statistic that he used. At this point, he states the purpose of his article which is to essentially throw in his view on what should be done about gun violence in the United States. He uses a general gun proponent quote to show the opposing side of the argument, and uses it to strengthen his own argument. At this point he begins to state how gun safety should replicate toy, car, or swimming pool type safety.
On December 15, 1791, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The bill was approved by three-fourths of the United States. The 2nd Amendment was created, to provide citizens of the U.S. a form of private protection. However due to the increase of technology along with the rise of violence in modern time, many are beginning to question if we should remove the Amendment, and only grant members within militia organizations access to this Amendments right to bear weapons.
Within the first paragraph there isn’t a clear thesis, it is displaying opinionated questions instead of proven facts. There are too many rhetorical questions throughout the paper. It would be better if the author narrowed down the idea of gun control to one topic for example there position on gun control and then find sources that agree. That way there is a definite topic not just the arguments from each side of gun control. Since the topic is so controversial the author has to decide which way to go.
The most noted writer of the Constitution is Thomas Jefferson. If Jefferson states that forbidding the ownership of arms encourages homicides opposed to preventing them, that leaves little up for interpretation. Through the exploitation of several mass shootings, former President Obama made these mass shootings out to be caused solely by guns, not by the mentally unstable individual who committed the horrendous acts. Thus making a call for more gun control in order to “control” and “prevent” these mass shootings (Kopel
All he does in the article is explain the act itself. Instead of just explaining the act he needed to share his opinion how how the issue of the matter can be resolved. In the first paragraph he introduces this act, “In 1934 measure called the National Firearms Act, and it stands as a stark rebuke to the most sacred precepts of the gun lobby…” and his last paragraph provides another act, “Eight years of experience with the N.F.A has demonstrated that people who register weapons rarely commit the crimes.” It is clear he understands that the N.F.A. is not doing all it can to stop these shootings, however, he needed to provide multiple solutions to solving the problem of the amount of shooting the US has yearly. If Berlow wants to have more people side with his opinion on the subject then he needs to add more support to his
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.
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
Throughout history, especially recently, the question of whether gun control violates the 2nd Amendment has been a question which many people claim they know the answer to, but it may not be that transparent. I believe gun control is constitutional, and it deters crime and makes society safer, meaning I side with the pro-gun control ideas. Within the topic of gun control, there are many factors in which people must take into consideration when proposing an answer such as whether it deters crime, what the economic impact is, and what should be changed. NEW PARAGRAPH... Gun control can date way back, but what really made it controversial was the court case of Heller vs DC in 2008.
The assault rifle ban has critics that believe by banning the weapons, it would make the country a unsafe place. Opponents claim that the Second Amendment reserves the right to own any type of weapon for self-defense. Noel Marino, the Editor and Author of Guns and Crimes, stated "Gun control supporters had argued that the Founding Fathers could not have in envisioned semi-automatic firearms, and thus the Second Amendment only protected firearms such as muskets. However, the court dismissed that notion saying " some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.
According to www.debates.org, there are two sides to the issue and many opinions on gun safety. The side that wants gun restrictions say “ I see everybody keeps saying "2nd Amendment" this, "2nd Amendment" that. You're looking at something that was adopted in 1791. Ladies and gentlemen... we live in the 21st century, it should be about time that we do something about old rules.
Overall, gun control laws are an important impact on each state. This article is about whether or not we should have gun control laws, people say it is necessary, other people say that even if we have gun control laws people don 't follow them. I disagree because with no laws more people are making their own guns and there are more attempts and acts of shooting attacks. With gun control laws people would safer and there wouldn 't be as many deaths caused by self
January 14, 1990 appearing in Parade Magazine the article ‘The Right to Bear Arms’ by Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States, discusses gun violence in America, Gun regulations, and the Constitution. In the article Burger brings to light the massacres and deaths to support his stance on gun regulations, while supporting how important guns are to the American people. He mentions in his article the difference between “Saturday night Specials” and sporting guns, the state militias, and the history of 13 original colonies to show reader’s supporting facts and statistics for why America is needing gun regulations. “Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun
By Charles Scaliger which is against gun control. By looking at the tone of the article and Scaliger 's usage of words such as "anti," "criminalizing," "utopian," "sin," and "evil," one can argue that article is against gun control. These sources were chosen because they provide strong evidences that both support
Alexis Clarke Professor Frank English 110 29 October 2015 Gun Control Will Not Eliminate Crime The big issue of gun control in the United States, is that many people believe that it takes away the 2nd Amendment rights, which is the right to bear arms. Citizens of the United States are promised the the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and by applying gun control laws takes away that same right. Crime is high enough in cities with very few laws pertaining to gun control, but taking guns away from people who are registered with license will not solve the problem either. Placing more limitations on gun owners, particularly responsible gun owners, will not reduce gun violence.