The Right to Bear Arms
The second amendment in the constitution of the United States, declares that all law abiding citizens have the right to purchase and bear arms. This means that firearms will be allowed in citizens homes for use in self-defense against intruders. State governments have the power to take this amendment one step further by allowing open or even concealed carry of personal weapons. Our modern society has fought restlessly over the meaning and practice of this amendment, and some citizens believe that this amendment should be removed from the constitution. I believe that this amendment is the greatest amount of danger, and if altered could possibly cause a domino effect to the other amendments.
The debate over this amendment begins with the literal interpretation of the amendment itself. The amendment reads "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" (Chemerinsky 26-28). The meaning of this quote in our modern society has yet to be understood. The first theory is that as citizens we are to stand ready, arms in hand waiting to defend our nation from foreign and domestic threats. While other citizens argue that this amendment refers solely to personal ownership and protection. I believe that until we can all share an equal understanding of the amendment, we will not reach a sensible agreement on the matter. Although both sides have reached an agreement on tighter regulations for the sale of firearms, very little progress has been made in reforming this issue.
The sale of firearms is an incredibly confusing process. Shotguns, rifles, and handguns all have individual registration and guidelines of sale. Althoug...
... middle of paper ...
...lling these signs. Gun control would help to keep firearms out of the hands of violent individuals, but we must exercise this in moderation and maintain the integrity of the second amendment.
The second amendment has become under attack more heavily over the past few years, and I believe that supporters of the amendment must act now to preserve it. I do agree that we must regulate firearm sales and possession in a more efficient manner, but I cannot support the idea of removing firearms from citizen’s homes. In our society criminals have become smarter, and much more ruthless. We cannot let them control our lives and live in fear, we must be able to successfully defend ourselves and our families. We must defend this amendment and our constitutional rights. If the second amendment is abolished by its enemies then the challenge will be extended, come and take them.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution 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 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.” This statement basically means that people should be able to own guns for their own security and that right should not be taken away. The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution because the creators of the Constitution wanted to make sure that it protected basic rights, including the right to bear arms. It was also added to the Constitution because shortly after it was ratified, James Madison wanted to give more power to the state militia and to give more power to the people to give them the ability to fight back against the Federalists and the tyrannical government they were creating. After fighting off the British, the Second Amendment was created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against controlling government and protect themselves with their own weapons.
is the use of a Militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing
We are entitled to the right to bear arms and taking that right away would be unconstitutional. Guns are not the cause for all the violence and crimes that have happened over the years. They do not increase the death rates. Children are more likely to die in a car or swimming pool accident then gun related deaths (VerBruggen). The weapons are needed for protection and hunting, owning a gun is not unconstitutional Taking the Second Amendment away or changing it would be unconstitutional and Un American, It is like any other right. This right is one of the reasons why we are the land of the free and home of the brave. “Any society that will give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both” - Benjamin Franklin
The way that an individual interprets the wording of the Second Amendment influences their point of view on who has the right to "keep and bear arms" (Amendment 2). The controversy brought on by the Second Amendment is because the Second Amendment does not clearly define whom "the people" are. This ambiguity has left room for action by legislative bodies and the courts to pass laws and make interpretations that influence the way this Amendment is applied and enforced. 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." (Amendment 2).
In current day society, it is frequently promoted as self-defense and our “duty” as Americans to own a gun of some sort. The second amendment to the constitution declares that “We the People” are allowed to bear arms because we live in a free State. Although these statements are true, at what cost? The question, “at what cost,” arises due to the recent push for an extension and enforcement of the second amendment. The people of the States have been pushing for desired concealed carry at public areas, such as schools. Statements and questions of concern have been on the as to whether or not this idea is “smart”. Contrary of it allowing some people to feel safe, the idea should be imposed. Guns are weapons and they have the history behind them
“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” is stated in the United States Constitution as the Second Amendment. Several Americans wish to rid of guns from citizens, disobeying and disrespecting the Constitution. I shot my first gun when I was young and have always been surrounded by them. My neighbor does not leave the house without carrying one, nor does my eighteen year old friend. Never once have I felt unsafe or uneasy knowing that there was a gun close to me. The right to bare arms has become a popular local battle in which some people want to reduce the freedom of one owning firearms while others wish for the
The second amendment to the US Constitution shows that it is unconstitutional to have complete and total gun control. The second amendment states that “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.” This means that it is the right of an American citizen, abiding by the constitution, has the right to bear arms. Currently, there are over three hundred and seven billion people residing as American citizens. Within the homes of these Americans, forty five percent have a registered gun in their household. As a diverse nation, there are many reasons why there are guns located within a household. Sixty percent stated the gun is used for protection against int...
The ease of obtaining a firearm in America fosters crime and a dangerous environment. Hence, the Second Amendment should be reinterpreted so that stricter gun laws can be implemented because modern citizens do not require guns, current background checks are flawed, gun accessibility has been abused by foreign and domestic criminals, and Americans cannot handle guns responsibly.... ... middle of paper ... ...
Ultimately, it is a person’s choice to use firearms to commit violent crimes. So criminals should be controlled, not the guns which they share with millions of law-abiding citizens. Gun control supporters claim that gun control lowers crime rate. We as people need to take a stand and fight for our Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. Gun control advocates need to realize that passing laws that honest gun owners will not obey is a self-defeating strategy. Gun owners are not about to surrender their liberties or their right to bear arms. The Federal Govement of the United States should not be able to take away the right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun.
Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being committed with guns will be reduced and thus save lives. However while gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, the same laws restricts gun owning citizens who abide by the law; these citizens make up a great majority of the opposing side of this argument. These people argue that the law was made with the individual citizens in mind. This group believes that the Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. One major group that is in strong opposition of stricter gun control laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA argues that having stricter gun control laws will only hinder law-abiding citizens. The final outcome on this debate will mainly depend on how this Amendment is going to be interpreted.
In today 's world, America has become a terrible place full of crime and murder. Most of these crimes have to do with guns, or some kind of shootings. The good citizens of our country need away to defend themselves from crime acts like that. No matter what, criminals will find a way to get guns in the country just like they do drugs. Also, one of the main reasons we are able to keep enemies out of our country is because of our rights to bear arms. In order to keep our country as close to safe as possible, the Second Amendment must stay in place.
For years proposals for gun control and the ownership of firearms have been among the most controversial issues in modern American politics. The public debate over guns in the United States is often seen as having two side. Some people passionately assert that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns while others assert that the Second Amendment does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. There are many people who insist that the Constitution is a "living document" and that circumstances have changed in regard to an individual’s right to bear arms that the Second Amendment upholds. The Constitution is not a document of total clarity and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its amendments and has left many Americans divided over the true intent.
The second amendment states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Founding Fathers included this in the Bill of Rights because they feared the Federal Government might oppress the population if the people did not have the means to defend themselves as a nation or individuals.
Gun Violence is one of the United States most serious crime problems. The total cost of gun violence in the United States, including medical, criminal justice, and other government and private costs, are at least 6 to 12 billion a year (Cook, P. J. & Ludwig, J., 2000). The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) mission is to track firearms. It reported that firearms sells have risen since 2005. According to the A...