Essay On Right To Bear Arms

The murder rate would go through the roof. It is common sense that when you outlaw guns, only outlaws will find a way to get a gun. Because they are criminals, they would find ways to hide guns from the police. Drugs are a good example of this. Drugs are illegal, but people still find ways to have them.

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. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause stated “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century as properly but, not overly regulated (Roleff 69).

In my opinion a law abiding citizen will less likely not break the law and own a handgun if they are banned, but a criminal will. If a person desires to rob a store or murder someone, he or she is not going to be worried about breaking a gun ordinance. Handgun bans remove an extremely valuable self-defense method from citizens. If guns are banned in the United States, then what will happen if someone breaks into your home? Most likely they will have a weapon, and if you call the police, they will already had a chance to kill you and taken all of your possessions by time the cops come.

This shows that can people own a gun. In conclusion, this shows that gun control can lead to many harmful events. If we make gun control illegal, there would be no more murders, shootings, and death. Everyone can be safe and not be harmed. This could make the world a safer

Those against the gun control argue that it 's a private initiative for a criminal to have interaction in crime, whether or not he holds a gun or not. During this regard, he doesn 't need to possess the gun for him to carry a weapon. A lot of comparisons are created between alternative weapons that wont to kill individuals and also the guns that are continuously blamed for getting used in killing individuals. Individuals can and have used crude weapons such as screwdrivers, knives, ext. Showing that they the killing would still have taken place, within the absence of the gun.

“[Britain’s] Magna Carta and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security of that nation….this principle is a fundamental one… [and] such declarations should make a part of [the United States’ frame] of government” (Document B). This document limited the King's power. By the Barons stopping the KIng from doing anything they wanted they limited the KIng's government. The framers limited the government by making Amendments In the Bill of Rights. The branched cannot pass any law that is unconstitutional or against the people.

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.

Thesis 1: Charlton Heston is directly responsible for the large amount of gun ownership in America and is thus responsible for the large amount of gun related violence in America. If he stopped his rallying then gun violence would drop. Response: I disagree with this statement because Charlton Heston only promotes legal ownership of guns, and he does not support any form of violence and only encourages guns be used for self defence. Thesis 2: Musical artist like Marilyn Manson are used as a scapegoat by the people, who blame him for everything from suicides to rebellion, but this simple distracts the public from the real cause of these issues. Response: I agree with this statement because it 's too easy for people to blame a celebrity for all of society 's problems.

The second amendment states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right people to keep and bear Arms, shall be infringed.” The 2nd amendment has been in contribution over 200 years. The 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791. James Madison introduced this amendment. This amendment was created by the founding fathers to protect individual rights to own a gun and limit the government’s power. Another reason for this amendment being added was during the time of the Revolutionary War, the British did not allow their Subjects to arm themselves against the King .The intention that the framers were getting to was that people have the right to bear arms to protect themselves and their state.

“A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that "legal purchase of a handgun appears to be associated with a long-lasting increased risk of violent death"(-https://gun-control.procon.org/). There is such a thing as an unlicensed dealer selling handguns without a background check and proper documentation and it is legal. Those gun buyers are mainly causing chaos with mass shootings and yet others think the Second Amendment defends the right to own a weapon for “self-defense”. It is time for tougher gun control laws; the safety of the citizens depends on a safe environment free of guns from those using them for villainous purposes such as mass shootings or homicides. The age restrictions on guns is preposterous; any teenager

To Justice Scalia, this means that the individual has “the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (Scalia, 4). The question at stake, however, is not whether the individual or collective is protected but the scope of the right in question. In other words, while it is clear that the amendment protects the right to use guns for military services but does not protect its use for crimes, what rights does it encompass in between those extremities, such as the right to carry a weapon for personal self-defense? A more natural reading of the amendment, where the prefactory clause is read chronologically before the operative clause, shows the text’s intent to solely protect the rights of militia. This is proven, as pointed out in the dissent, by the fact that states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania explicitly articulated in their Declaration of Rights at the time the separate right of individuals to bear arms for self-defense.

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.

Even though gun laws prevent deaths, they infringe so many rights in the immutable Bill of Rights, which is one of the foundations of the great United States. Gun laws give too much power to the government and way less from the people, which will lead to government corruption. And, stated by ClearPictureOnline.com,”Guns don 't kill people, people do. We need to concentrate on the values and morals of our citizens and at the role the media plays in glorifying violence and the lack of respect for law.” (Shootout: Do We Need More Gun Control Regulations?) What people don 't understand is that they are taking away their own freedoms with Gun Control.

Gun Control "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." As Thomas Jefferson stated, this right of citizens is a way of self defense. This has been a right of the people in America for centuries, why should this right be taken away now? Enforcing of this law could increase attacks, restrict good citizens, and take away a means of defense from the people.

People also “...support the rights of hunters, sport shooters, and recreational gunmen.” (openreader.org).Criminals are already breaking the law, so adding more won 't deter them. “Criminals will get hold of guns – indeed, by definition, if guns are outlawed, one becomes a criminal just by acquiring one – and leave non-criminals more vulnerable than ever.” (bigthink.com). Gun control laws do not help deter, and only slightly inconvenience them. Guns are a high trade item in the US, so there are definitely many other illegal sources. Also making strict gun laws takes power from the people.