Gun Control can do its job with interfering with law abiding gun owners as little as possible. Many people believe that Gun Control laws are not going to stop the rate of murders and deaths go down because they say that it is not the
Chances are that there will be a negative outcome, whether it’s death or simply the loss of property. Incidents like these and many more suggest that some form of gun laws need to stay in place in order to protect those who feel threatened. The first reason why the Second Amendment should not be abolished is because we, as citizens have the right to defend ourselves. Word for word, 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” (Constitute). That means that citizens have the right to own a firearm to defend from the government and/or criminals.
Lastly, the true meaning of the Second Amendment very controversial. Gun rights groups suppose it means universal ownerships to any citizen while Gun Control groups take it as gun ownership should be reduced to those in militaries. Some further thoughts regarding this topic are implementing universal background checks on all purchasers of firearms. According to an article by Ariel Edwards for the Huffington Post, this would make it harder to purchase a firearm from a shop or privately if the potential buyer has been convicted of a misdemeanor violent crime in the past. Additionally, although there would be control on firearms, how well would they be enforced?
However, there's too much freedom in regards to gun control. The second amendment clearly states that the need for arms is only necessary in case of a militia to form. We as a country are no longer in the need of a militia since we are not in the wild west (constitution amend 2). Another valid argument that if we were ever in a deficit of soldiers we would draft them like it happened in the Vietnam war. The second amendment says that we have the right to bear arms, but it never specifies their intentions.
However, before access to these specialty weapons is granted, one must obtain formal instruction and pass a battery of written, mental and drug tests and a rigorous background check. Furthermore, owners must inform the authorities of how the weapon and ammunition is stored and provide the firearm for annual inspection” (New York Times). If a country such as Japan, with a similar population to the US, can have gun control, then why can’t the US? It’s absurd! Like Japan, the sale of all guns should be completely outlawed.
American subjects need to know their rights, obligations and security of owning a handgun. The second alteration says, "A very much controlled civilian army being important to security of a free express, the privilege of the general population to keep and carry weapons should not be encroached." The second revision was made for two things. It arrives for to begin with, to ensure the people right to have arms for self-protection and self-conservation. The second reason is identified with the volunteer army.
“Gun control refers to an all encompassing term that can be linked to the specific laws and regulations enforced by the government restricting firearms as well as the safety measures such as safety components or trigger locks used for firearms and guns.” There are multiple arguments towards gun control like if the laws should be less strict, stay the same, or more strict. The topics in this paper are if the stricter gun regulations will not reduce gun violence, there should be a national right to carry law or the
Gun control has long been a controversial topic in the U.S. The U.S. government need to strengthen the gun control regulations to a level that no one has gun, with only a few exceptions. The government will then still need to have supervision on these exceptions. These can protect her citizens and future. Currently, the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution empowers the U.S. citizens to own guns.
Everyone deserves the right to own their own guns, and should have the right to carry them wherever they go. If we were to do that then maybe all the shootings would no 't have happened, and more people would be protected rather than injured. All general topics have people for or against it, so is gun control as important as everybody thinks it is or is it overrated? The United States Constituion says this in Amendment 2:- “ 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 should in no way be changed or banned. Changing the aAmendment would just cause more confusion and frustration for the people changing it, and for the people .
Guns have been a part of America’s history since its creation, so much so, even an amendment of the very Constitution it was founded on is devoted to civilian possession of firearms. It therefore comes as no surprise that any initiative to somehow enforce stricter laws and regulations regarding firearms, or God forbid, strip the people of their Second Amendment right, is faced with some resistance, to say the least. However, following the example of countries that have virtually solved some crime or firearm related issues by employing somewhat unorthodox measures, could potentially reduce the amount of violent crime that is sweeping the US. Gun control has been subject to much debate and controversy in the US and is still somewhat considered
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.
Chicago 2010, the second amendment over rules Chicago’s handgun ban. The people of the city said they felt vulnerable and brought this ban to attention. Rejecting the petitioners would have been unconstitutional, so they brought it to the Supreme Court. The judgement was reversed, and the case remanded. According to guncite.com, the petitioners had based their case on two things-“Primarily, they argue that the right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Slaughter-House Cases’ narrow interpretation of the Clause should now be rejected.
There would be a huge debate about the Second Amendment and opponents will argue about how the Second Amendment also referred to individuals in America and how the amendment protects individual gun ownership. Chairperson of Revolution PAC, Lawrence Hunter, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to bear laws is as primary and as essential to maintaining liberty. The rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty described in the Bill of Rights.” Supporters might argue and state how its original meaning was intended to protect the militia, but opponents believe otherwise. Opponents of more female protection might say that Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime. A survey ran in December of the year 2014 resulted that American males were owning a gun protect them from being victimized.
The second amendment in the United States Constitution gives the right of the people to keep and bear arms which means the people of the United States have the right to have guns and use them. The argument on on gun control is not logical as the second amendment states that the people of the United states have the right to bear arms. Although you can lose your second amendment rights by convicting a misdemeanor involving domestic violence, the government can not take away guns unless another amendment is added to the constitution to abolish the 2nd amendment. In the constitution no amendments can be removed but another amendment can be added to ratify that amendment such as the ban of liquor. After the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting fear struck the nation.
In his article, ¨So You think You Know the Second Amendment,” Jeffrey Toobin, points out the duplicity of the NRA in their quest to re-interpret the Second Amendment. Toobin emphasizes that “for more than a hundred years” the “Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well” had found that the Second Amendment “conferred on state militias a right to bear arms- but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon.” Toobin poisons the well when he says, “Enter the modern National Rifle Association.” Introducing a paragraph of critical comments about the group identifies this as an unwelcome appearance of the NRA. This suggests that the NRA’s participation in the debate is likely to be unwelcome and disruptive. Another example of propaganda