Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Summary of the second amendment
Summary of the second amendment
Importance of gun control laws
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
I. Introduction: Attention: No matter where we are, we are not safe Introduce thesis: Definition of the Constitution’s second amendment Thesis: Second amendment should be further restricted II. My claim two main points. A. Police officers’ right to keep and bear arms in self-defense should be further restricted. 1. Officer Wilson – responsible for the teenager Michael Brown’s death 2. Officer Loehmann – responsible for the teenager Tamir Rice’s death B. Individuals’ right to keep and bear arms in self-defense should be further restricted. For example, George Zimmermann – neighborhood watch citizen responsible for the teenager Treyvon Martin’s death III. Counterclaim. Further restrictions will not stop criminals from acquiring guns and
With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.
Specific Purpose: To persuade the audience that any attempt by the government to control guns should not be supported
The right to bear arms protects “The Individual” rights from owing a firearm. The modern federal government easily accepted the 2nd Amendment with a widespread agreement that power of the federal government to infringe the Amendment that gives people the right to bear arms. If the government should not have the power to abbreviate from the free right to exercise of religion, than the government should not have the power to abridge the 2nd Amendment right (Lund & Winkler, n.d.). Over the past century, many restriction were supported to prevent criminal from possessing firearms as the law also limits the law-abiding people who respect the law also known as “Honest
“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
Throughout the past decade or so the Second Amendment rights issues have arisen with the demand of individuals rights to keep and bear arms. The constitution states the “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.” In the court case upheld in the Supreme Court Columbia vs. Heller, the ongoing debate of this interpretation of the Second Amendment. Heller, a special officer in Washington D.C., was denied the right to being able to register a handgun to keep at home. This case was taken up to the Supreme Court due to Heller’s argument stating that the government of the nation’s capital must obey the Constitution and the Bill of Rights because these texts are the supreme law of the land. Heller’s belief of injunction was certain, “at least one of the founding fathers said that there will be times when the State or Federal Government will overstep its bounds and will need to be put back into its place.” There has not been any lower court cases or any true precedent case besides Columbia vs. Heller for Drake vs. Jerejian. Drake vs. Jerejian seeks an end to the unjustified denial of carry permits by the State of New Jersey; and the unreasonable restriction for concealed carry permits citing “justifiable need” or “urgent necessity” for the issuance of a permit. Constitutional rights are protected under the law and may not be denied by government officials because of perceived “need” or “necessity.” The Second Amendment should not only guarantee this right to possess firearms to members of militia but also to those who may grant this privilege, as well that it’s a right in our constitution. An individual’s Second Amendment right should se...
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...
As violence and murder rates escalate in America so does the issue of gun control. The consequence of this tragedy births volatile political discourse about gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the question is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote, “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.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment the make and model of firearms has changed dramatically and so has the philosophies of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle-loading musket used to primarily protect families or solely for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the second amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of gun control articles having been written , still the gun control issue remains unresolved. History tells us gun control debates will be in a stalemate until our judicial system defines or rewrites the Second Amend. This paper will examine the history of the Second Amendment, and attempt to define the framers intent, gun control legislation and look at factors that affect Americans on this specific issue...
In a tragic event such as a mass shooting, a large population of Americans are quick to draw the conclusion that the right to own a gun is harmful to society; however, the second amendment is what allows the American people to protect themselves from such shooting instances. The privilege to own a concealed firearm is beneficial to the American population when well-regulated for reasons such as self-defense and expressing freedoms which U.S citizens are privileged enough to receive through the second amendment; given they pass a background check. The second amendment is what makes the privilege to own a gun legal. This thesis paper will highlight the benefits of the right to own a gun under the second amendment,
Although the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from completely banning guns in America, limited restrictions are allowed on the distribution and possession of firearms. Certain groups of people such as criminals, the mentally unstable, and soldiers dishonorably discharged from the military are prohibited from possessing or interacting with firearms (Flynn). These restrictions are enforced by background checks in some states on both a state and federal level. However, gun laws vary from state to state and are often not thorough enough; the background checks are flawed due to lack of information and misinformation, and guns can easily end up in the hands of criminals and malevolent individuals. 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...
“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 right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence would ultimately fail given the previous experiments of gun control in England and in numerous states.
Unlike many other countries America has freedom of speech. Even in other countries in Europe people are not allowed to use “hate speech” and they can be sent to prison for it. Fortunately, the American constitution defends people’s freedom of speech, no matter how controversial it is. Political correctness diminishes people’s free speech. It may not be direct but even indirectly the knowledge that someone might have adverse consequences; such as losing a job as a result of their speech is unacceptable. People have the right to state their opinions without others infringing on them, it was the principle in which America was founded. The first amendment of the constitution of the United States declares that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” (US Const. amend. I, sec. i). While the first amendment only affects congress’s control over free speech, it indicates that free speech is a right that people must have. Some people are of the opinion that if something can be found offensive
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
Between 2006 and 2011 alone, the FBI has counted over 172 cases of mass killings, not including those unreported from different police agencies to the FBI (“Murders in the US”). Gun control should not be re-enforced because it would cause problems by prohibiting individuals from self-protection. Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law once stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life. many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals”. When we are born, we are born with the right of life, and with the right of life comes the right to self protection.
The United States Constitution is regarded as the supreme law of the land. When it was drafted over two centuries ago, the goal of the founding fathers was to provide for the general welfare and common defense of all citizens, establish a more perfect Union and insure domestic tranquility for the United States of America. Unfortunately, this tranquility has been disturbed by unnecessary tragedies at the hand of armed individuals. Tragedies like the Sandy Hook shooting and the Columbine massacre, where armed individuals took the life of innocent civilians mercilessly, have shaken our communities and forced us to take a different approach when it comes to gun safety. Gun control has been the topic of many heated debated in recent years. We have, as a nation, become so accustomed to firearms in our everyday lives whether for protection, hunting, or self-defense, that we have forgotten that firearms are dangerous and deadly weapons. The second amendment of the Constitution grants all individuals the right to bear arm; however, this amendment continues to be used and abused by individuals who chose to interpret it differently than it was originally intended. It is our duty, as citizens of this great nation, to open our eyes wide and realize that this problem is not going to fix itself. Although the right for all individual to bear arm is granted and secure in our Constitution, it is imperative for the safety our population to regulate all gun purchases and tighten by the requirements necessary to purchase a firearm in order to prevent further tragedies from occurring.
One of these major incidents occurred in the past few years was the Sandy Hook School Shooting in Newtown, Connecticut. 20 year old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 kids and six adults school faculty members and ultimately committed suicide by shooting himself (Flegenheimer, 2013). Another shooting occurred in a Colorado movie theater, where James Holmes shot 70 people that led to 12 deaths in July 2012 (CNN Library, July 2014). On February 26, 2012 an incident occurred between a Floridian resident and neighborhood watch coordinator, George Zimmerman, who reportedly shot and killed a sixteen year old boy, Trayvon Martin in self- defense (CNN Library, February 2014). However, many people feel that the shooting was uncalled for because Martin was unarmed and he was walking in the same gated community he was currently living with his father. These stories are just a few that calls to attention the importance of personnel gun restrictions needed in this country. After reviewing these incidents, now the real question is, "Could these incidents and other countless of gun related criminal acts have been avoided if there was just an increase of firearm restrictions