When stated throughout this essay, the statement “right to bear arms” can be widely interpreted into a large number of ideas. The topic is widely debated with one side believing it is the right to own a gun for self-defense, and the other believing it is for a standing militia. The ruling of the courts is in favor of the belief that guns should be owned for Self-defense. This belief is the reason why in 2008, the Supreme Court justice ruled that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with
This would be what is known as the “Gun Show loophole.” Contrary to its name, it is not only a gun show loophole, but more of a private sale loophole. This loophole allows guns sold at gun shows or for example on the internet, to be sold without a background check being needed; “‘According to the US Department of Justice, because federal law fails to require background checks by every person who sells or transfers a gun—known as universal background checks–’individuals prohibited by law from possessing guns can easily obtain them from private sellers and do so without any federal records of the
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 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." Some reasons why this amendment was made are that the framers wanted adults to know how to use a weapon and to be ready to use a weapon if they were attacked. During this time, the British troops were still attempting to overtake the new land, one of the ways they did this was by attempting to take the people’s guns. There was still reason to believe that British would still attack the new country and the United States did not have a real army, so any military action needed to be responded to by
This amendment, along with others in the Bill of Rights, were proposed in order to ensure that the people would have the innate rights that everyone should have. They served as a reminder to the government that they recently fought a war to attain these rights and taking them away was not an option. Overall, the second amendment was found to be a necessity throughout the Revolutionary era in matters of not only the Militia, but also as a defensive tactic and symbol of innate liberties for the American
Guns don’t kill people. People kill people. Many believe this, but columnist Nicholas Kristof, author of “Our Blind Spot about Guns,” published in 2014 in the New York Times, disagrees. A rhetorical analysis should consist of: logos, pathos, and ethos. Kristof’s use of logos is strong due to the amount of facts and statistics he offers to his audience, but he fails to strongly use pathos and ethos, due to the lack of these elements Kristof’s argument is weakened.
The colonists created a system in which the government had limited power but enough to maintain the country while the states and the people received equally limited power as well. The Constitution still protects its citizes on several accounts, including through democracy and power distribution, nevertheless failing in premitting the President to wield all powers during a national emergency. As for the future, the Constitution will continue to be amended to protect the citizens to the best of its ability from tyrants and their dictatorial
The colonists decided to place a guard against tyranny and thus, over 230 years after the writing of the Constitution of the United States, The Constitution in fact protects the states, the states rights and the citizens rights against tyranny. One such Constitutional device used in the guard against tyranny is the separation
Mental illness does not appear on current background checks. Pollitt makes the remark that, “… you have to be mentally ill to commit mass murder …” (484) It’s possible if a mental illness would have been included in a background check, recent shootings may not have been able to take place. Stephen Paddock of the Las Vegas shooting was mentally ill and bought several guns himself. Like Dvorak mentions in her column for the Washington Post, “The group calls for clear standards and stronger compliance for reporting mental health issues to the National
Running head: GUN VIOLENCE GUN VIOLENCE What Changes Should Be Made Cassius A. Kurns Jr Mr. Redmond Leo High School A way that we can decrease gun violence is have a stricter sale on firearms. Loopholes now exist in the background check system that make it possible for people with criminal records or mental health issues to procure guns. For instance, a gun purchased over the Internet or from a private individual at a gun show is not subject to a background check because neither instance involves licensed gun sellers. Anybody of age can go to a gun show or online to purchase any firearm. If background checks, and polygraph test, then we can decrease gun violence.
Four dissenting judges believed that the full legal context of the Second Amendment should have been reviewed. Heller v. District of Columbia was brought into question for the dissent and how it addressed concealed carry restrictions. According to the dissent the Heller case ensured that the government was not to deprive its citizens of a constitutional right to carry firearms and that concealed carry extended beyond private property. In a separate dissent, Judge Silverman and Judge Bea argued that the near complete refusal of certain counties to administer concealed carry permits would fail to pass any form of scrutiny. The dissent also stated that, while statistically insignificant, concealed carry may not reduce the violent crime rates; however, they do not contribute to more of it.
The best contention for the insurance of the privilege to have arms is the Second Amendment. The motivation behind the alteration, and the whole Constitution, is to build up specific rights that can 't be annulled or changed by our legislature. Be that as it may, the wording of the alteration has been a wellspring of level headed discussion. The principle contention is that the revision accommodates a local army, and that the "right to keep and remain battle ready" is alluding to civilian army individuals as it were. However, the correction likewise expresses that it is the privilege of "the general population" to keep and carry weapons.
There are laws to protect and make it legal by obtaining a license in the state in which an individuals is purchasing a gun but that do not stop the black market. Gun control laws and violence with in different states is a clear view that the gun control laws/bans are not really helpful in today’s society. I feel that the law did not abolish the black market of gun purchases therefore people are still purchasing guns illegally for what the state ban in the first place. Now for those individuals who have no criminal background and obtain a gun for recreational purposes (hunting or protection/depends on state laws) within that state then it is
The Second Amendment, "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." –James Madison, The Second Amendment. The founders of our country as well as our constitution believed that without weapons in the form of firearms, there is no freedom from the harsh rulings of a corrupt government. These founders had just been freed from the duty of war from a corrupt and harsh government, without their weapons or the weapons of the people; this country would not be where it is today. That is why the founders found it in there top priorities in the bill of rights.
Heller. ", Oyez). Furthermore, in dealing with the text of the Constitution as well as the history, the court held that “militia” will not be limited to citizens currently in the armed forces but, “…comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense” (Syllabus). The majority felt that due to the period in which the Constitution was penned, to define the Second Amendment as restrictive, and allotting the right to possess firearms to those only serving in the United States military, would be to juxtapose what was expected of the Amendment and enact a state-sponsored power that the Constitution was trying to safeguard the people from ("District of Columbia v. Heller.