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. Although this is true, there is doubt that the founding fathers thought that there was a need to specify which weapons we could possess and who they could be issued to. The intention of the second amendment was to protect ourselves not to destroy one
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.", Oyez). Therefore, in correlation to the original and plain meaning of the Second Amendment, the operative clause as Scalia stated, should be interpreted to “…protect an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home” (Syllabus). The majorities’ interpretation of the Second Amendment as Scalia states, is
Now, the argument that, “the 2nd amendment only applies to a well-regulated militia (like the national guard) and has nothing to do with individuals” is an obvious ignorance of our country and the founding documents. Look at the militia act of 1796. That act required all able bodied men to own a MILITARY rifle (NOT a musket) so that it could be at the ready should that person be needed to defend his
The Second Amendment protects the right of people to keep and bear arms. This amendment was a controversial among different people in the government. It was between letting the people keep their weapons or to not let the people keep their weapons. This amendment was important to the framers of the Constitution because it provided the country with a well-regulated militia. 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
Strict regulations and limitations have been pursued already and clearly do not suffice. Statics brought to attention by gun control opponents, show that gun control laws have done little to reduce crime rates. Several restrictions have been made on certain guns, considered as overly dangerous, though in the hands of an unstable criminal even a legal hunting gun can be deadly. Countless restrictions have been made, however people have still found ways around them. If people are unstable and determined enough, they will find a gun, regardless of the restrictions or regulations. Options may be, black markets and stealing, sometimes from family members. Criminals or mentally ill people have and will continue to find ways around gun restrictions and
POW!! Imagine you just saved your family from a slum trying to take what you worked for Tough
I think it is clear that America’s lenient Gun Laws have no doubt been a huge factor on the staggering amount of gun violence for a long time. I do believe, however, in people’s rights to defend and arm themselves, it is part of their constitution, I just feel that it is necessary that the laws regarding the 2nd amendment need to be reinforced and should introduce some restrictions to ensure that only the people who are mentally capable of wielding a firearm, without causing harm to society, should be allowed to acquire one. I do also recognise that there are already a staggering number of guns in the possession of the general public, and I feel that the only way to tackle this issue is cultural change in America, changing the views of individuals on the idea of guns, but change is always
A weapon in the wrongs hands is the maximum danger humanity can face. Nowadays, violence and delinquency in society are viewed as the maximum problem solver. Humanity is full of chaos; hate and envy seize our souls. Guns are the ultimate security for some citizens but for others, these add to a feeling of defenselessness. Throughout history, any topic related to guns means a plethora of problems. One of the most controversial issues our nation faces today is gun control laws. This controversy has been created due to the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states the right of citizens to bear arms; “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” (Cornell Law School). Anti-gun control laws believe that the amendment guarantees the right to bear any kind of firearms. On the other hand, we have does that believe that more controls laws should be implemented since the 2nd amendment was for the right of States to have an armed militia during wartime. Both sides have strong point, however, the safety of our children comes first, and a firearm means death in the wrong hands.
Guns are just a tool, like knives and hammers and it completely depends on the people on how they use it. People who support guns and arms say that the Second Amendment secures individual’s right to carry guns with them and that gun rights is needed for self-protection, and was intended for military to have peace and defend the country if needed (Spitzer, 70). Most of the Americans use guns as a source to protect themselves and they believe that gun ownership prevents crime. A study conducted on November 26, 2013 showed that bans on weapons did not significantly affect murder rates at the state level (Lane, 5). Moreover, even if the rules and regulations are executed on gun control, not all criminals obey the law. Criminals do not care about
Gun control has become a polarizing and controversial issue around the globe. There have been many reported issues of mass shootings both in schools and in the public, making it a hot button issue. Proponents argue that, if the government strictly controls the ownership of guns, such tragedies can be prevented. Most Americans have an obsession with guns because the law allows them to do so. Therefore, they are always ready to scoff at anyone trying to control gun ownership. This makes us wonder why people can be so defensive over something like a gun that is so dangerous and has lead to a lot of deaths in the American society. Gun control is essential in our society today because it will help prevent unnecessary shootings and crime rate Gun control will play a major part in the decrease of the crime and murder rate. Therefore, in my point of view, guns should be totally controlled and regulated by the government. If gun ownership is controlled by the government, only a limited number of people will be allowed to own guns. In addition, the regulations will make it difficult for people to access guns unless they have a concrete reason as to why they need the weapon. Moreover, if the ownership of guns is limited, it will help prevent unnecessary deaths and violence caused by gun owners, especially students. Gun ownership should be totally controlled and regulated by the government because they will help in limiting the number of people who own guns. When gun
In 1939, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, six million Jews and seven million others unable to defend themselves had their lives taken away.  Could this outcome have changed if the Jews were armed with guns? Could thirteen million innocent lives have been saved? Does taking away firearms help someone in a situation like this? Many pro gun-control citizens believe that banning firearms will make them safer and some even protest. For reasons of self-defense, to assist the police, and because violence will always be present, the United States’ law regarding the legality of firearms should stay in place.
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.
When debating the wisdom of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the media tends to start from the presumption that the question is purely scientific, and that the answers can — and should — be derived from statistical analyses and relentless experimentation. This approach is mistaken. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not the product of the latest research fads or exquisitely tortured “data journalism,” but a natural extension of the Lockean principles on which this country was founded. It must be protected as such. The Declaration of Independence presumes that all men enjoy certain inalienable rights, among them “life” and “liberty.” Practically speaking, at both the state level (as a bulwark against tyranny) and at the individual
The big issue of gun control in the United States, is that many people believe that it takes away the 2nd Amendment rights, which is the right to bear arms. Citizens of the United States are promised the the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and by applying gun control laws takes away that same right. Crime is high enough in cities with very few laws pertaining to gun control, but taking guns away from people who are registered with license will not solve the problem either. Placing more limitations on gun owners, particularly responsible gun owners, will not reduce gun violence. Although there are rules and regulations already in place there still is a lot of crime occurring, because laws on gun
The Second Amendment says, “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.” Gun rights has become the subject of intense political, social, and cultural battles for much of the last century. The pro-gun right side has asserted that the right to arms was absolute, and that any gun control laws infringed that right (Kopel, 2013). This right has been supported by the Supreme Court who has reinforced what has become the American consensus that the Second Amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, especially for self-defense, and that it is a fundamental individual