Second Amendment Flaws

Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia 's thirty-two – year ban on handguns in 2008, a victory for the gun- rights lobby that seemed to promise a more permissive era in America 's long tussle over gun ownership." (Fields, Gary). The battle over whether residents can own firearms has been replaced by a new debate over whether lawmakers can restrict legal gun ownership. "Nobody thinks we would have fewer shootings and fewer homicides if we had more relaxed gun laws." (Fields, Gary).

The gun market and black market has been around for years and the way states was trying to handle gun control went against individuals 2nd amendment. Let us be aware that just because it states in the constitution that we are allowed to bear arms not everyone have a legal spectrum to do so. The Ban D.C. try to implement did not have much of an argument when it reach to the Supreme Court. The decision of District of Columbia v. Heller made it possible for cases like McDonald v. Chicago (State Case) to bring forth an argument in which applying the 2ND amendment to state

On one side people say the federal government's involvement in gun laws would infringe upon people’s second amendment rights. On the other side, people say the government should act. In the case, in increasing gun laws the federal government should act. Since the beginning of the United States the choice of gun law has been left to the states and because of this many states have lackadaisical about implementing gun laws. Currently, Idaho and Montana don’t have any of the seven regulations stated above.

Before the Thirteenth Amendment was passed, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which set millions of slaves free, although many had to serve in the Army. Lincoln feared that congress would cancel the Emancipation Proclamation, so he decided to propose the Thirteenth Amendment, which was a more stable result (https://prezi.com/fiots83awse4/the-13th-amendment/). Liberals supported the ending of slavery, while Conservatives opposed the ending of slavery. Liberals supported giving citizenship to slaves that had been freed, while Conservatives opposed giving citizenship to freed slaves. Liberals were all for the right to vote for all while Conservatives were against the right to vote for

The Bill of Rights represents the first ten amendments of the U.S Constitution. The First and Fourth amendment does protect the citizen privacy, however it does not regulate the choice of medical care. The Supreme Court has overruled the Obama care in which has made a decision of making every citizen must have health care or will be subject to a penalty on their annual tax and by 2016 the fine is $695 per adult or 2.5 percent of annual income whichever is greater. The Bill of Rights does not regulate the citizen of free exercise of health care nor the decision to suicidal.

On January 22 of 1973, the Supreme Court ruled abortion as a fundamental right. Forty-five years later, many people still take a stance as Pro-Life and don’t believe that abortion is a right. Though the reason for why people have different standpoints on this topic could seemingly be endless, the main roots of this argument are based on differences in morality, legality, and religious viewpoints. Despite the mass protests that have occurred, nothing has changed regarding the laws on abortion. The most recent shock to the people regarding the topic of abortion was when President Trump was pictured with six other men signing a ban on federal funding for international groups that provide information on abortions.

According to Voter Institute, Americans are more likely to be struck by lightning than to fall victim to voter fraud. However, states consistently cite this problem to justify strict voter identification laws, a popular form of voter discrimination today. It is for this reason that the Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 to prevent the disenfranchisement of minority voters. However, in June 2013, the Supreme Court case, Shelby County v. Holder, deemed Section 4(b) of the act, the list of states subjected to preclearance, unconstitutional. Critics argue that the Section 4 states no longer displayed the same amount of blatant discrimination compared to the past rates which had warranted the burdens of preclearance.

Should the death penalty/ capital punishment be a thing? The death penalty should not be legal, because it has no place in today 's society. The death penalty has been around since at least the eighteenth century B.C. Now the U.S. still has the death penalty in 31 out of the 50 states. While some may say it seems barbaric to still have a death penalty, the U.S. says it 's used as a crime deterrent.

Since the tragedy happened in Orlando, 49 people have been killed under the gun. The controversy of the gun controls arises, which has impacted both on democrats, republicans and candidates. Each side sticks on their standpoint, and still debated about it. Trump did not clearly indicate his position on the firearms, but he said “he will save and protect the Second Amendment”. Trump is also trying to suggest if Clinton wins the election, then she will not allow to bear gun.

Unfortunately, Paul knows that there is no possible way to ban all guns in private hands even if the state tried to ban them. Waldman writes, “I’d suggest that if we were able to do that, we’d be much better off if we abandoned the absurd fetishism around guns that leaves us awash in so much blood and gore.” I do agree with him that putting a ban on guns would America tremendously safer, but there is no possible way to get all guns out of private hands. Paul also says, “ Over 30,000 Americans die every year, and ten tens of thousands more maimed and paralyzed.”

It then states, ”If the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage," said Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, an independent. "Therefore I will try to stop the passage of the bill. (Time)” The making of the cloture guideline was not an announcement of affection for supermajority rules to the Senate, but rather it was the result of tough managing of an unsupportive

The defendants, Williams and Hendrix, were prosecuted for bigamous cohabitation by the state of North Carolina. The defence pleaded not guilty and offered copies of their Nevada divorce decrees. They argued that the marriage and divorce were legal in not only Nevada, but North Carolina as well. Because the plaintiff failed to bring up the Full Faith and Credit clause, Williams and Hendrix were not considered guilty by the court. It wasn’t until a retrial a few months later that the Full Faith and Credit clause was mentioned and the two were found guilty of

Is Gun control the answer? These type of questions are being asked by lawmakers. Researchers are saying that taking away all guns is not the answer and are looking for other ways to prevent mass shootings. In the U.K almost all handguns were banned from civilian possession in 1977. Morris M. says “The rate for intentional homicide in the UK in 1996—the year of the Dunblane Massacre—was 1.12 per 100,000.

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.

The Second Amendment of the constitution states that as an American citizen, you have the right to bear arms. While this has been one of our rights for hundred of years, some believe that this amendment causes more issues and violence. Mass shootings generally trigger the gun control debate. As the two opposing opinions disagree, along with the pro-gun right party is the National Rifle Association(NRA). On the opposing side is a group of lobbyists that have called themselves the Brady Campaign but have changed their name along the way, adding various other gun restriction advocates.