More handpicked essays just for you.
Why the second amendment is important in 2018
Why is the second amendment irrelevant essays
Significance of the 2nd amendment essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Why the second amendment is important in 2018
The fact that purchasing a firearm in some states involves many regulations and requirements, but purchasing ammunition does not even require an age limit is egregious in my opinion. I believe that remarkable types of ammunition, such as armor-piercing rounds, should not be available to the common people. Ammunition like this was made specifically to penetrate or do more damage, inferring that the people purchasing it intend to do more harm. Thus, special types of ammunition should be restricted, allowed only to those licensed and permitted to use such things. In the U.S., “many armor-piercing bullets used in handguns are illegal under the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. But rifle bullets have long been exempt” (BBC). It is confusing why one is the handgun variant is illegal while the assault rifle variant is not, but this is most likely due to Congress who “focused on handguns because they were, and still are, used in the majority of firearm-related crimes” (Mak, A). It is perplexing …show more content…
An argument can be made that activities or tasks like hunting or practicing shooting require more ammunition, but there are ways around this. Hunters should require a license or permit to own larger firearms, and target practice can be done at shooting ranges, which provide ammunition. Pro-gun advocates often argue that harsher laws and bans on specific weapons or ammunition infringe upon the second amendment, which is one of their basic rights as a citizen. My interpretation is that the right to bear arms allows the people to own weapons for defense, but this does not mean they can own entire arsenals of weaponry. High powered weapons like assault rifles and shotguns are not necessary to satisfy the people’s right to weapons for defense. Handguns are more than capable, less dangerous, and easier for the government to
The United States being the leader in per-capita gun deaths among industrialized nations, massive shooting such as Columbine, Sandy Hook, and Virginia Tech, and an average of 33 people dying in the United States everyday due to gun related violence are all reasons that we not only should, but need to regulate gun laws.
Over the last decade or so, the United States of America has been shaken by an epidemic of terrifying mass shootings, devastating slayings of unexpecting victims, and unnerving annihilations of the innocent. There is no specific target, no explicitly sought-out group, nor definite individual. From a classroom of first-graders, to a crowded movie theatre, to a U.S. Naval yard, the location seems at most, random, other than that it is almost always a public place. The perpetrators responsible for these horrific murders also vary, and often surprise those who thought they knew them. However, while the occurrences of mass shootings are unpredictable and always shocking, most have one thing in common: the use, or rather misuse, of assault weapons-automatic or semiautomatic military style rifles. To ensure the safety, security, and well-being of the people of the United States, the government should ban assault weapons.
Assault weapon control is becoming an unavoidable topic in the United States. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation more than nine hundred people have died from mass shootings in the past seven years and an assault rifle was used in twelve of the forty-three mass shootings in the past four years. The U.S. Department of Defense has long defined assault rifles as fully automatic rifles used for military purposes. The National Firearm Act of 1934 prohibited fully automatic weapons in the United States. The 1994 Assault Weapon Ban prohibited semi and fully automatic weapons and any weapon with military style characteristics. California Senator, Dianne Feinstein, is leading the charge in the American government to pass a bill that will limit the capacity of ammunition in a magazine and ban assault weapons that are too dangerous for public use. It is time for the American government to act swiftly and acknowledge the dangers assault rifles pose.
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.
In Colorado where twelve people where killed legislature has combated this with tougher background checks and limiting all magazines soled to a ten round capacity limit.according to politics/policy after Colorado enforc...
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.
Over the past year, the United States has been plagued with controversy in regards to gun control legislation. On January 24, 2013, Senator Feinstein introduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013. The Assault Weapons Ban was a bill written to stop the acts of sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of military styled weapons. The NRA-ILA website quotes an excerpt of Feinstein’s bill, which states, “Feinstein’s new bill are as follows: Reduces, from two to one, the number of permitted external features on various firearms. The 1994 ban permitted various firearms to be manufactured only if they were assembled with no more than one feature listed in the law. Feinstein’s new bill would prohibit the manufacture of the same firearms with even one of the features.” (NRA-ILA) Wayne Lapierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, said in 2009, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the guns you want to ban and you don’t want to ban. You’re going to ban these semi-autos, and then it’s going to be handguns, and then it’s going to be pump shotguns.” Lapierre’s statement supports the fact that the recent gun ban legislation across the United States will not solve the problem of increased violence.
With all the shootings and random acts of violence, such as the shooting at the movie theatre in Colorado, or the Sandy Hook shootings, stricter gun control laws have been a hot topic in politics and the national mainstream media. The government thinks that gun control being stricter would help to make less of these tragic incidences occur. I am against this thought because I believe that the law-abiding citizens will be the only ones to give up their guns and criminals will then have an upper hand on the innocent. Even though banning guns is supposed to save lives, cities such as Chicago have already shown that stricter gun laws should not be passed because violent murders are still prevalent in these types of cities and strict gun laws have not worked like they were supposed to.
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.
“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.
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.
People have questioned gun control long time. Many people wonder if anyone, aside from those who join the law force, should be allowed to carry guns. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Wright 4). Franklin understood that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not uphold their liberty. Some people who argue for gun control state many violent crimes involve guns. Others believe a child could find the gun and something bad could happen to the child or others when a gun is unsafely stored. People who argue against gun control might say there is a huge psychological gap between citizens who shoot to protect themselves or their property and those who go into schools and shoot at others. Criminals will always find a way around gun control laws and will be able to obtain and use guns illegally. The second amendment protects gun rights for individual citizens. Reasonable gun control laws and educational steps can be taken to protect the majority of U.S. citizens. Gun control does not only take guns away from criminals, gun control also limits law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families when necessary.
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...
Did you know the second amendment states that you have a right to own and use arms for protection? Kentucky passed a law in 1813 that prohibits the carrying of concealed weapons. In May 1987, Florida passed a “shall-issue” law that became a model for other states. There were 11 states that have the “may-issue” law which allowed permits. On July 8, 2011, Wisconsin became the 49th state to allow concealed carry. (ProCon.org) Adults who go through training and obtain a permit should be able to carry a concealed handgun.
Every day some news related to gun violence are being heard all over the world. Shooting in driveway, public places, schools, homicide and suicide are some of different types of gun violence. Shooting on people and killing them is a big issue in the world and different comments are provided about that. One of the most important of them is about gun control laws. Stingl (2013) says “The term gun control as it is used in the United States refers to any action taken by the federal government or by state or local governments to regulate, through legislation, the sale, purchase, safety, and use of handguns and other types of firearms by individual citizens.” According to this idea gun control laws should be stricter and people should not be able to have access to guns easily. However, there are many other people who believe this idea is not a good solution and never help. This essay will demonstrate for and against views about the topic. People who agree with this idea consider: firstly, stricter laws will reduce violence and gun control means crime control. Secondly, some research shows people with gun are more at risks of getting shot. Thirdly, guns can always be misused by their owners and finally, stricter law is the best and the faster way to control crime and make community safe. While opponents say first of all, guns are necessary for people safety and protection. Secondly, guns are not the only tools for killing and violence; there are other weapons too and finally, gun ownership is human rights.