Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gun control and the 2nd amendment debate
Definition of the 2nd amendment controversy if any sounding the amendment
Definition of the 2nd amendment controversy if any sounding the amendment
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gun control and the 2nd amendment debate
Americans Have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Our rights as Americans started to take shape when the Constitution of the United States was drawn up by the delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Three years later, a very important part of American history called the Bill of Rights was added. The Bill of Rights is looked upon and interpreted every day. It gives the citizens of the United States many of the rights and freedoms that we value today, and some of those are in jeopardy. One right that is at stake is our right to bear arms, which is addressed in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is a highly debatable topic, and many legal scholars and the Supreme Court have yet to resolve the issues and controversy dealing with the Amendment. Until a decision can be made, the law will remain as it is currently interpreted. The citizens of the United States of America have the right to keep and bear arms. The controversy about the Second Amendment is derived from how it is worded (Jordan). The debate about the wording can be broken into two different arguments. To understand the arguments it is important to know how the Amendment is worded. 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 (qtd. in Anastaplo 61).” The first argument is that some people view the Second Amendment as two separate rights. The right of the people to keep and bear arms can be interpreted with the idea that each individual has the right to keep and bear arms; whereas, it could be a collective right giving just the members of the Militia the right to have guns (Gold). It is believed that the original meaning of the right to bear arms and the militia in the same Amendment was because in the early times of America the citizens needed weapons to guarantee their freedom and prevent the government from forming a dictatorship (Edel xi). The second debate is that the Amendment is one statement, therefore meaning that the militia has the right to bear arms. The problem of understanding the meaning of the Second Amendment has been brought before many courts all across America and has been ruled upon in different ways at different times. However, the Supreme Court has never declared it illegal to own guns. Over the years, t... ... middle of paper ... ...iminals would be able to get guns illegally if they wanted them (Smith 25). It comes down to the age old saying of “guns do not kill people, people kill people.” The ability to keep and bear arms is also a right given to the American people by the Bill of Rights and was reinstated when one of the framers, Thomas Jefferson, said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Works Cited Anastaplo, George. The Amendments to the Constitution: A Commentary. Baltimore: John Hopkins UP, 1995. Chidsey, Donald Barr. The Birth of the Constitution: An Informed History. New York: Crown, 1964. Edel, Wilbur. Gun Control: Threat to Liberty or Defense Against Anarchy?. London: Praeger, 1995. Gold, Bruce. “The 2nd Amendment: A Historical Understanding.” Keep and Bear Arms.com. 5 April 2004 Hickok, Eugene W., ed. The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Charlottesville: UP of Virginia, 1991. Jordan, Stan. “The Common Sense 2nd Amendment.” Keep and Bear Arms.com. 2001. 5 April 2004 Klein, Chuck. “What the Second Amendment Says.” The Cincinnati Enquirer 28 March 2001: B7. 5 April 2004 Smith, Guy. Gun Facts Version 2.0. 2000. 1 April 2004
Since its ratification in December of 1791, the Second Amendment has created a major controversy as Americans have been arguing over the meaning and interpretation of the amendment. Due to the controversy, “angry polarization and distortion, rather
Doeden, Matt. Gun Control: Preventing Violence or Crushing Constitutional Rights? Minneapolis: Lerner, 2012. 7- 61-63. Print.
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.
Do the First and Fourth Amendments Protect?" Current Issues & Enduring Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking and Argument with Readings. Ed. Sylvan Barnet and Hugo Bedau. 5th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin's, 1999. 316-324.
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.
Some people will argue that the US Constitution allows citizens to bear arms only for a well regulated militia, A militia being an army composed of ordinary citizens. This is true that militia is necessary to the security of a free state. They also proclaim that the provision “The constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” the Second Amendment does not mention handguns by explaining that carrying a concealed handgun increases the chances of a confrontation escalating and turning lethal. Gun control supporters maintain the thought and believe that the use of handguns is not stated in the constitution and is considered dangerous. Many also believe that it is too easy to get a gun. Many believe this. but they are sadly mistaken.
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).
This debate has produced two familiar interpretations of the Second Amendment. Advocates of stricter gun control laws have tended to stress that the amendment’s militia clause guarantees nothing to the individual and that it only protects the states’ rights to be able to maintain organized military units. These people argue that the Second Amendment was merely used to place the states’ organized military forces beyond the federal government’s power to be able to disarm them. This would guarantee that the states would always have sufficient force at their command to abolish federal restraints on their rights and to resist by arms if necessary. T...
According to www.archives.gov, the second amendment of the United States Constitution reads 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 amendment is
Professional champions of civil rights and civil liberties have been unwilling to defend the underlying principle of the right to arms. Even the conservative defense has been timid and often inept, tied less, one suspects, to abiding principle and more to the dynamics of contemporary Republican politics. Thus a right older than the Republic, one that the drafters of two constitutional amendments the Second and the Fourteenth intended to protect, and a right whose critical importance has been painfully revealed by twentieth-century history, is left undefended by the lawyers, writers, and scholars we routinely expect to defend other constitutional rights. Instead, the Second Amendment’s intellectual as well as political defense has been left in the unlikely hands of the National Rifle Association (NRA). And although the NRA deserves considerably better than the demonized reputation it has acquired, it should not be the sole or even principal voice in defense of a major constitutional provision.
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.
The 2nd Amendment has been a very controversial topic over the past year with the recent open carry law introduced to the public. This has caused much confusion amongst the right to bear arms and the overlooking Federal government’s role in controlling what it seems dangerous to the public. Our first eight amendments of the Constitution are direct restrictions on the federal government, and the 2nd amendment does not specifically grant the right for people to bear arms in a sense most would have believed. It does however forbid the federal government from infringing on your unalienable rights to defend yourself, it specifically says you shall not be infringed. This targets Congress, the Judicial and Executive branches of government and means they cannot pass a law, or sign anything that infringes on your right to bear arms or defend yourself.
The issue of gun control has always been a hot topic among the American public. Most everyone, if asked, will tell you that gun control is an issue needed to be dealt with because of the event that took place at Columbine High School back on April 20th, 1999. The American public has been wrestling with gun control long before then. If we take a look back at August 1st, 1966 at the University of Texas, a man armed with a hunting rifle committed one of the most violent mass murders in history. Gun control refers to the Government placing restrictions on the American public to buy, own and sell firearms. If we read the constitution, our second amendment right is the right to bear arms. This has been the ongoing controversy of this issue. We the people say our constitutional right to buy and own firearms is being seized from us. The government is using our society’s violent incidents as cover to place restrictions and bans on firearms. This essay’s purpose is to provide proof that buying and owning firearms is our legal constitutional right and that our government is trying to attack the wrong angle when trying to fight crime involving guns in the United States.
- "Second Amendment." LII / Legal Information Institute. Legal Information Institute, 2016. Web. 22 Apr.
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.