Roger McGrath and Warren Burger provide different perspectives on the continuing debate over gun regulation in the United States. Although these authors establish opposing conclusions, both understand that gun related crimes are becoming increasingly common and therefore pose a threat to the domestic tranquility of the nation. Their controversy is centered around whether or not increased gun restrictions will lower criminal activity. McGrath, in his article “A God-Given Natural Right”, argues that increased gun control will only disarm law abiding citizens leaving them defenseless therefore providing incentives for criminals to break the law. However, Burger’s emphasis on the unrestricted distribution of firearms in his article “The Right to …show more content…
Each look to the history behind the writing of the Second Amendment in order to find its true purpose. Collectively they reach the conclusion that the Second Amendment was created in order to preserve the security of the citizens from a tyrannical government. McGrath focuses mainly on the aspect that the Second Amendment is a God given right and that it is the duty of the citizens to rise in revolt against a government that threatens these rights. The historical evidence that McGrath provides sufficiently supports the idea that oppressive regimes gain power by detaining firearms from citizens. However, he fails to provide strong and conclusive evidence that the right to bear arms is not granted by The Constitution but granted by God and only recognized by The Constitution that this right is God given. On the other hand, Burger supplies ample historic evidence that suggests that the Second Amendment protects citizens from an oppressive government by preventing the establishment of a national standing army. He then uses this claim to successfully stress the fact that because a national standing army is crucial in today’s era due to successive wars, the original intention of the Second Amendment is no longer necessary. Because Burger exemplifies deeper understanding of the purpose of the Second Amendment, his argument is ultimately more effective because he provides stronger grounds of …show more content…
The comparison of guns to printing presses is made by McGrath when he claims that the right to own firearms should be treated like the right to own printing presses due to the fact that ownership of a printing press is as essential to the First Amendment as firearms are to the Second Amendment. In fact, Burger acknowledges this idea when he states “The Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods”. However, Burger elaborates by draws comparisons between automobiles and guns, that the regulation of guns is as necessary as the regulation of automobiles in order to protect the safety of the public appropriately. Burger’s claim is stronger than McGrath’s claim because the comparison between automobiles and guns is more justified than the comparison between guns and printing presses since guns and automobiles both have the potential to effectively kill people. Furthermore, because McGrath does not offer specific areas of deregulation to consider whereas Burger offers specific areas of regulation (although he does not provide evidence that regulation in these areas will prevent crime), Burger’s argument is better thought-out and constructed than McGrath’s
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America Latasha Custis The world today is relatively chaotic, but the book A Well Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, written by Saul Cornell provides an in depth version of gun laws and the journey in which it assumed form as the second amendment. Cornell a graduate of the University of Sussex, Amherst College, B.A., and the University of Pennsylvania, M.A went on to become a professor and writer. He has instructed students in history since 1986 thru 1995.
Gun-rights has been a constant issue within society for what seems like forever. People strongly advocate for their beliefs about this topic all the time, but in many people's eyes nothing seems to change that would solve the actions that are taking place. People feel strongly about both sides, but commonly share the idea of the outcome. This past Sunday in Las Vegas is an example of the actions that people are advocated to prevent. Andrew Rosenthal, writer of the New York Times, argues that the way to solve this issue and prevent future actions like what occurred in Las Vegas to happen is by limiting the power or the ease of purchase.
During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. And it has… This was the ultimate concern, period. “It is an accident of history” as claimed by Paul Frank “and the times that allowing the private ownership of guns served as a protection against the penchant of the times for military to take over governments.”
The Bill of Rights is something the American people hold close to them, especially their right to bear arms. Recently there has been a lot of debate over implementing gun regulations without infringing on the rights of the people. While a position of this is expressed in Wayne LaPierre’s “Universal Background Checks Mean Gun Registration, Gun Bans and Confiscation”, Jeffrey Toobin’s “So You Think You Know the Second Amendment” provides a more valid position evaluating the issue of gun control. Universal background checks are a big discussion lately in our country’s current climate.
While opposers of gun control legislation believe that an increase in possession of guns reduce crimes and violence, statistics have revealed a strikingly positive correlation between possession of guns and violent crimes. The U.S. may only have 4.4% of the world’s population, but it has 42% of all civilian owned guns (Kodjack). There is a gun for almost every citizen, with “approximately 300 million firearms held by citizens in their homes” (Kodjak). These statistics have created great suspicion about the reliability of legislative regulations in restricting the citizens’ ability to obtain firearms, and reducing gun violence. Critics of the NRA’s activities have identified loopholes, or ways to illegally get by, certain gun laws.
The book talks about the history of gun control and focuses on debates from a dozen of distinguished specialist from around the world. It examined the Second Amendment and political climate surrounding laws that can impact the issue with gun violence. It focuses on exploring the problem with gun control from both the prospective of law enforcements and the public. The second source is a website "Gun Control Facts." By James D. Agresti and Reid K. Smith.
This article explains the Second Amendment in The U.S. Constitution of the right to keep and bear arms. This article talks about the Second Amendment before and after the case of Heller, after being that it now permits every American citizen the right to keep and bear arms not just military personnel. Krasnicka is the author of many publications, has her doctorates in law, and is a Professor in the Department of Public International Law at the University in Bialystok, Poland. This article targets the general U.S. population and was used for background information on the Second Amendment in The U.S. Constitution.
No guns. no violence? Months ago, the news channels broadcasted the several mass shootings with took place, mostly at eventful areas. The shooting at L.A. was without a doubt, the most shocking and mournful accident. Ever since then, fear started entering the minds of citizens, questions rose about the restrictions of using guns and to maximize the difficulty to obtain firearms.
The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is the right to bear arms, which gives American citizens a constitutional right to own and purchase guns. It states, "A well-regulated
Patrick said “N.R.A.spending on lobbying outranked spending by gun control groups by a factor of ten to one” for the 2012 elections. With all that money in politics there were no new gun legislation passed. Patrick describes a cycle whenever there is a public tragedy what precedes is massive scale arms sale from a possible new regulations from arms that never comes to fruition. The writer bring up the fact that in many stores such as c.v.s you can openly buy arms with small to no regulation. Patrick proclaimed there are approximately 300 million guns in the us alone .The
Gun control versus gun right’s has been the most controversial topic in the United States, especially for the past (5) five years. It has been said that gun control violates a citizen’s right to bear arms. Although, many citizens see gun control as a violation of their rights, guns still is the cause of innocent Americans killed for not having tougher gun control laws establish. Gun control in America is not the particular problem in America, but it is the number one cause of needless crimes today. This assignment is not to point fingers on which side is right, but this assignment is to come to common grounds to enforce safety for our society from needless gun violence.
In today’s society, one of the most alienating issues in American politics is gun control. More specifically, the issue is whether or not guns should be banned in the United States. Some people would say that guns should be banned because it would reduce crime as a whole and keep citizens safer. These people, enthusiasts of stricter gun laws, fear being safe in their country where there are so many people who have access to guns. Opponents of this argument, however, also fear losing safety.
Hence, it was a sensible security to implement “well regulated militias” with the power to effectively resist. Evidently, guns mean something far more different to Americans today, whereas, in the past it was merely protection, today it prospers tradition: nourishment, recreation, and security from insecurities. However, the fact that guns foster
The Power of a Gun In the United States of America, the First Amendment right is one of the most important, allowing us to our freedom of speech. The Second Amendment is the second most important, allowing the citizens to have the right to bare arms to defend themselves, their family, and their country against any threat. This amendment gives us the right to have power for ourselves for protection, hunting, and sport. Due to the recent gun violence in America, some people view guns as a horrid object and want to revise the second amendment.
He presents the arguments laid out by the original authors, though he struggles to separate each one due to how convoluted and confusing the authors make it. Their first point, Barnett states, is that the term “bear arms” has an exclusively military connotation. Something as historic as the second amendment, if ratification is justified, is sure to have proportionally historic sources to back it up. However, Barnett reveals that the original authors source an opinionated essay as their champion defense. Not only do they rely on a piece from a collection of book reviews, but their source was later exposed, prior to the book being written, to be misusing a Latin translation.