Second Amendment Flaws

Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people. Gun laws have their positives and negatives, but the debate isn 't resolved yet.

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.

The Second Amendment grants U.S citizens the right to bare arms, but it was written in a very different time: there was no police protection, and were no automatic weapons available.”- Is it time to pass tough gun control laws? By McClathy Tribune. People often refer to the Second Amendment when the argument of gun control laws as an excuse to prevent these changes because they believe their right to self-dense with a weapon is a form of government taking over. “There’s also the slippery slope argument. It preys on people’s fears that the government will turn into a dictatorship or completely ban guns…The Founders of our country wanted the people to be able to protect themselves from over powerful governments.” - Is it time to pass tough gun control laws? By McClathy Tribune. People might think their rights are being taken but in reality we are making the U.S a safer place for all our citizens. “They say that since Congress stopped banning assault rifles in 2004, violent crime in America has fallen significantly, and shootings are also down slightly.” There are positive consequences for having new gun control laws and the safety of the citizens increases with each new law. Those positive consequences are not enough to convince everyone that we need improved gun control

In his introduction, Winkler lays out both sides of the Second Amendment debate, sharing strictly historical facts and suspending all personal judgement. The article is then separated into many headings and subheadings, where Winkler goes into more detail describing arguments from different point of views, i.e. “The Bill of Rights Argument”, “The Fundamental Rights Argument”, “Theories of Strict Scrutiny” and so on. This is clearly a “Move Two” as described by Writing Analytically. Winkler does a fantastic job of making the implicit, explicit. He touches on practically every aspect of the Second Amendment debate, presenting a multitudes of data, before reaching his conclusion. Also noteworthy, Winkler follows IRAC. He clearly identifies an issue, then states “this discussion here is informed by the example of state constitutional law” (Winkler 686), which would be applying standards, analyzes both sides of the debate in the meat of his article, then establishes a conclusion which is, “The history of deferential review under the reasonable regulation standard is as good an indication as any that, even if the Second Amendment is reinterpreted to protect an individual right, almost all gun control laws are likely to remain constitutional” (Winkler

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. 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.

‘’Guns are responsible for over thirty-three thousand deaths in the United States annually, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).. In 2014, the CDC reported that 11,008 of the 15,872 homicides committed in the United States that year involved a firearm. Of the 42,826 suicides reported that year, 21,386 involved a firearm. These statistics have inspired efforts at the federal and state levels to enact gun control legislation to reduce crime and violence’’(‘’Gun Control’’). According to the statistic guns are held for over 33,000 deaths in the United States. CDC also reports that 11,008 homicides involve a gun. Over half of the suicides cases in America involved a some kind of a gun. Although Americans have the Right To Bear Arms there should be more restrictions on guns because guns are responsible for a lot of deaths across America.

The amount of people calling for a full ban are in the vast minority; most people advocating for gun control just want to make sure that average people, not the mentally ill or felons, can own a gun for self-defense, hunting or recreational shooting. There are more guns than people in this country, and while it may be difficult or pointless to regulate the legal, over the table purchase of them, it’s better than doing nothing, or letting teachers carry guns, which would do nothing but cause more chaos, fear, and deaths. Your 2nd amendment rights are not restricted by having to pass a background check or mental health test, in the same way that your 1st amendment rights are not restricted because you cannot say “fire!” in a movie theater or threaten someone’s life. Amendments need to adapt to be applicable, and an amendment written by people 240 years ago should not and will not be applied the same way as it is in the

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. They fear that they will not be able to protect themselves on a daily basis, or in a worse case scenario, protect themselves if the government happened to turn on citizens of the country. They would also argue that people, especially criminals, can still find ways to gain access to guns. Guns should not be banned in the United States due to them being able

The right to bear arms has been a favoured constitutional law since its establishment in 1791, but as more gun related violence and accidents occur, there has been increasing debate on whether or not guns should be banned in the US altogether, and if not, what regulations should be required for the purchase and handling of them. While guns should not be completely banned from the country, the rules and regulations of gun laws should be tightened. In the 2nd amendment, it clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While this statement still holds true, the evolution of firearms and how they have become more dangerous throughout the years is a clear sign of why the laws should be changed.

Many people believe that there should be many gun control laws in place, they also believe that

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. The right wasn't created as a result of the constitution, but rather ensures that the government cannot revoke it. This right is essential for self protection, therefore, certain precautions must be taken in order for the right people

The use of and the owning of guns is a very hot and debated topic in society today. For many, this is a life and death debate due to the recent and numerous school shootings. These school shootings have caused an outcry for more gun control, specifically in relation to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Despite these calls, increased gun control is not the answer. Most gun owners’ use their guns responsibly and for good purposes. Gun control also limits our constitutionally derived right to own firearms. If gun control is enforced, law-abiding citizens will be forced to give up their guns and their right to own guns, while many criminals who own guns may illegally keep theirs. As the saying goes “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Guns are an important aspect of our society in many ways. They allow for protection, recreation, and hunting. They also do not have as many negative effects as some claim. The right to own firearms is a constitutional right that is important and needs to be upheld.

The debate of gun control presents an ethical dilemma in deciding which rights afforded by the US Constitution are more important. The ethical debate places the rights afforded in the Second Amendment to bear arms against the rights afforded in the First Amendment to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The ethical predicament has roots in societal views of violence and how it is observed by both sides of the debate.

Guns are a cost-benefit ratio along with everything else in this world. Guns don’t fire by themselves, so why do we need to outlaw guns when the gun doesn’t pull its own trigger? Instead, we need to work with the people using them.

“Just in 2018 there has been 18 school shootings, on average per week” (snopes:How many school shootings have taken place so far in 2018). The incidents that have occurred have been a big impact in people 's lives. Yet no one with power has spoken about the problems regarding the recent shooting. See, there are two main sides of gun control, the side that agrees and the side that doesn’t. People who agree believe that no one should be able to own a gun, or that there should simply be stricter gun control laws. Therefore there would be less chance of another shooting to occur. The people that don’t agree believe that they shouldn 't lose their right of owning a gun because of one person’s actions and accidents that they couldn’t have prevented. “The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.” America should have stricter gun control . Gun shop owners should be aware of who they are selling a gun to, and what weapons they are able to purchase. With tougher gun control laws, there will be a lesser chance of another shooting.