Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Debate over the right to bear arms
Gun violence and it's effects
Effects of gun violence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
America is a highly armed nation. While the police carries about 897,000 firearms, private citizens carry about 270 million weapons. This staggering statistic makes the United States the number one gun country in the world, with 88.8 guns for every 100 residents, followed only by Yemen with 54.8 guns per 100 residents and surprisingly Switzerland with 45.7 guns per 100 residents (cbg.ca). This tradition of carrying guns stems has been guaranteed by our Founding Fathers, who stated in the constitution, “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.” Indeed, the Second Amendment guarantees that all Americans have the right to bear arms. Trying to change these terms in the constitution seem …show more content…
However, though embedded in America’s history for more than two hundred years, the Second Amendment must be dissolved due to skyrocketing homicide rates, terrorism, and mass shootings.
The right to bear arms must be curbed since the homicide rate is rising in many parts of America. The issue of gun control is most pressing in America’s murder capital, Chicago. Just this year, 87 people have been shot and killed while 391 people shot and wounded. While the total number of homicides in Chicago is 92, 87 were murdered by a gun. In February of 2017 alone, 34 people have been shot and killed. (Gorner). This statistic was denounced by Father Pfleger who, along with Reverend Jesse Jackson, carried a cross through the streets of Chicago as a form of protest, “there is a much
“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
is the use of a Militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing
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.
Should we abolish the Second Amendment in order to reduce gun violence in America? Even if all guns were taken away there would still be violent crimes in America. In the article The Unrealistic Goals of Gun Control, there is an argument that there are several uncontrollable details as flaws in taking away all registered guns. In the U.S., For example, if guns are removed bad people will still find ways to commit crimes with or without guns (Wilson 1). I bel...
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 dramatic increase of gun violence in Chicago has many questioning the effectiveness of state policies and police tactics. For many Chicagoans, gun violence is a common occurrence and this would not be the first time in which a big spike has been observed. In fact, Chicago was doing well overall in each crime category until recently in 2016, when they ended the year with 762 homicides victims that were gun related. Towards the end of 2016, Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago, had a press conference with the communities at the Malcom X College. He goes into detail of how he hopes to see a sharp decline on the heavy issue of gun violence surrounding their city. It’s an issue in which the mayor says will only work through a combined effort of its
America is the most well-armed nation in the world, with American citizens owning about 270 million of the world’s 875 million firearms (Marshall). Indeed, this is more than a quarter of the world’s registered firearms. The reason why Americans own so many guns is because of the Second Amendment, which 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.” (Rauch) This amendment guarantees U.S. citizens the right to have firearms. Since this amendment is relatively vague, it is up for interpretation, and is often used by gun advocates to argue for lenient gun laws.
Should the 2nd Amendment be revoked or changed? Many Americans would say “No,” stating that guns are dangerous and times have changed. Others might argue that having the right to bear arms keeps people safe and less threatened by the outside world. In this debate, both sides of the 2nd Amendment constitutional rights will be argued. The upcoming presidential election has been influencing voters to revoke our 2nd amendment rights, which could change the democracy on which our country was founded.
Imagine enjoying a movie at Cinema 10, eating a meal at Taco Bell, or even sitting in a history class at Carman-Ainsworth High School while people all around you are carrying loaded guns! Although this may seem unbelievable, it is possible because the second amendment of the United States Constitution gives citizens the right to possess and carry guns. It is understandable that Americans would want to possess guns such as shotguns and rifles for the popular sport of hunting. However, it is ridiculous that our government would allow people to carry handguns. Handgun possession should be strictly limited, because they are made solely to kill people, they have increased the murder rate in the U.S., and they have even allowed children to easily kill other children.
Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. A vast majority of citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would quickly reduce the threat of crime. Many innocent people feel they have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting. Americans have a constitutional right to own hand guns and stricter laws and licensing will not affectively save lives.
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
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 second amendment says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The second amendment was made for two things. It is there for first, to guarantee the individuals right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation. The second reason is related to the militia. The right to carry a handgun for self-protection is a privilege of citizenship. The confusion is the right of the state or the individual. The regulation of handguns could be looked at as unconstitutional. The amendment is for the people and not the state.
Are you willing to sit back and become a victim of violent crime or allow the government to tamper with your civil liberties? In recent years, anti-gun politicians have attempted to control guns in the name of crime prevention this is an assault on the Second Amendment rights of US citizens . 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.” Not only did our Founding Fathers focus their debate on the right of people to keep and bear arms, they devoted energy to encouraging future generations to defend theses freedoms. In defense of gun ownership, Alexander Hamilton said, “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens.” During our country’s development hundreds of law-abiding citizens were able to take up arms against lawless mobs to defend themselves, their family, their homes, and their businesses. They did the job law enforcement simply could not do. Lives were saved. Robberies were prevented. Homes and businesses were defended and left intact, all thanks to the Second Amendment to our constitutional, the right to keep and bear arms.
Countries, such as the United Kingdom, restrict the rights of citizens to own firearms, because of the tragic consequences of gun ownership. On the other hand, The United States of America proudly boast the “right to bear arms”, as stated in the second amendment of the Constitution. America cannot seem to learn from nations like the United Kingdom, or internal terrorism. Frequently, violent attacks on innocent people ensue in what were deemed safe public spaces like schools, movie theaters, or churches. By simply stating the names “Sandy Hook”, “Charleston Emanuel AME” and “Aurora, Colorado”, deep despair from the malicious actions that injured and killed numerous citizens are remembered. These horrible events happen weekly and are in the back of many Americans mind as they go out in public.