More handpicked essays just for you.
The controversy of the second amendment
The controversy of the second amendment
Gun control can reduce crime essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Avatar‒ WalterEnforcer1 month ago In your opinion, I am wrong and that’s what this forum is about! Well, here is my opinion amplified; The Second Amendment confirms an individual's right to own firearms but it does not state that it is to “fend off tyranny.” Although it can be assumed that the drafters had tyranny in mind, I believe they intended a broader purpose for common defense. It provides for the ability to defend one’s self and others from criminals or from idealogical murderers who are all too present in our world today. Individual gun ownership also serves as a universal deterrent. For example, one of the fears a burglar has is to encounter an armed homeowner. Remember, your local Police cannot be everywhere, all the time. They …show more content…
I call this “The Unforeseeable Argument”. It attempts to make the case that the drafters of the Second Amendment would have changed or modified the Second Amendment if they could’ve foreseen future weapon technology. The contrast is made between the effective power of 18th century muzzle-loaded single-shot muskets, to the effective weaponry of today. The conclusion is that, had the drafters of the Bill of Rights been able to look into the future to see modern “assault rifles”, they would have written the Second Amendment to state: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Flintlocks, shall not be infringed.” And if the drafters could only reach out through time to speak to us they would tell us; "the Second Amendment really meant that people were allowed to own Flint Locks. Turn in your bolt actions repeaters and AR15 semi autos. We, the Founding Fathers now want the police and military to own AR15’s and you citizens are to own Flint Locks!" Would that not, for all practical purposes, disarm citizens and would that not be in opposition to the very purpose of the Second
After the Revolution, the country was left in an economic crisis and struggling for a cohesive path moving forward. The remaining financial obligations left some Founding Fathers searching for ways to create a stronger more centralized government to address concerns on a national level. The thought was that with a more centralized, concentrated governing body, the more efficient tensions and fiscal responsibilities could be addressed. With a central government manning these responsibilities, instead of the individual colonies, they would obtain consistent governing policies. However, as with many things in life, it was a difficult path with a lot of conflicting ideas and opponents. Much of the population was divided choosing either the
The Fourth (IV) Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses paper, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (U.S Constitution, Fourth Amendment, Legal Information Institute). The fourth amendment is a delicate subject and there is a fine line between the fourth amendment and 'unreasonable search and seizure. '
The Tenth Amendment was ratified along with the rest of the Bill of Rights on December 17th, 1791, as well, unlike most other amendments, it gave rights not only to the people, but also to the state governments. The Tenth Amendment was passed in order to delegate powers to the state governments and the people that the national government does not have, this amendment states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments are part of the Bill of Rights which includes the first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. These rights apply to the citizens of our great country. The Fourth Amendment covers search laws and has a significant impact on law enforcement procedures. If these procedural rights are not followed, there can be devastating consequences to the outcome of a case.
United States is a country that has problems with gun control, and this issue has many debates between whether or not people should be allowed to carry a gun on them. This free county not only for speech and religion, but also allows people to have the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment of the United States was written by our Founding Fathers,“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” (Government). The main purpose of the Second Amendment when our Founding Fathers wrote this amendment was to help the American citizens to defend themselves from the government at that time, and other countries from invading their properties. However, the Second Amendment could be the opposite of what our Founding Fathers wanted it to be in the twenty-first century, because many criminals are taking advantage of the right to carry guns, which in example results with the purpose of showing off with their friends, revenge for their gang’s members, or try to be like their favorite hero in the movie they had watched. On July 20, 2012, a massive shooting occurred inside of a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The tragedy happened during a midnight screening of the film The Dark Knight Rises which killed twelve people and injuring seventy others. In response, this alarmed our government to rethink about the current gun control law in America. In A Well Regulated Militia by Saul Cornell, the author informed to his audience the different views of gun ownership in early America, which part was the most important part of the debate, how did slavery affect the debate over militias in the South, the Continental army officer’s views, and the arguments be...
“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 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.
The Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia met between May and September of 1787 to address the problems of the weak central government that existed under the Articles of Confederation. The Antifederalists were extremely concerned that the national government would trample their rights. Rhode Island and North Carolina refused to ratify until the framers added the Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments outlined things that the government could not do to its people. They are as such:
The Second Amendment has always been met with much debate on whether gun control is constitutional or unconstitutional. The framers of the Second Amendment have left many people with different opinions on what its true intent was. Charles L. Blek Jr. and Joseph Sorban have two different views with many over lapping ideas and use court rulings, Second Amendment history, and past events in their articles to help support their positions.
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...
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 Second Amendment and the right to personal gun use and ownership, is under attack in The United States today. Apparently the Second Amendment wasn’t clear enough when it 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" and politicians are calling for this amendment to be altered or even removed. Firearms have always been a big part of the American culture, and the ability to own a gun is detrimental to not only protecting one’s life and property, but also to keep the government in line. Author William Burroughs said, “After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn 't do it. I sure as hell wouldn
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...
When our forefathers sat down to write the bill of rights they made ten basic rules or freedoms that all Americans are entitled to. For hundreds of years no one has questioned any of those freedoms, that is until recent years. The second amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms. The purpose of this amendment is to be able to form a militia in order to be able to overthrow a repressive government. In recent years the availability and number of guns in the United States has increased. With the media tracking and recording violence, some Americans have begun to question the 2nd amendment’s relevance.
The Second Amendment is worded to protect the right to keep and bear arms from any government regulations. 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” (“The Constitution”). Supporters of gun control often claim the phrase, “well-regulated militia”, justifies gun control laws. However, Alexander Hamilton claimed in Federalist, No. 29 that a well-regulated militia consists of private citizens that are trained in the use of their weapons, not regulated by any government authority (“The History”). Recently, federal courts have issued several rulings regarding the Second Amendment. In 2008, the Supre...