“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” (Bill of Rights). This is the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. This is a document that grants all Americans certain inalienable rights. All citizens no matter their age or standing in society have some understanding of the Bill of Rights and the freedoms that it allows. One freedom that is granted to us, the right to bear arms, has become the center of a heated issue in today’s society and many years before. The majority of citizens have felt the impacts of guns, either positive or negative, during some point of their life. It is because of the fact that guns are a part of numerous American’s lives that we must ask: is gun control needed for the protection of Americans or for the empowerment of the government through the removal of Americans rights.
The issue of gun control is not a new topic, their have been numerous other nations who have had this question before them. In 1995, Canada established a new set of gun control laws banning the ownership of assault rifles and handguns. In 1996, Australia passed a law removing all firearms from the country, making it illegal to own guns unless you where issued a special permit by the government. These are just a few examples of what other countries have done to regulate guns. So the United States is by no means the first country to have this question in front of them. This issue can not, and must not have a universal answer. As you can see from Canada and Australia’s approach each dealt with the same issue in completely different ways, ways that accomplished their specific needs. So before this question can be...
... middle of paper ...
...he buying and ownership of firearms. This could mean outlawing the ownership of firearms which would be a violation of our rights.
The rights of Americans are a privilege, and are in place for a reason. There must be a just explanation for the removal of ones rights. You must ask yourself then is the removal of firearms for the protection of others a just enough reason to violate our rights or does the possibility of the government gaining complete control over its citizens present more of a danger.
Works Cited
- "Bill of Rights," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2004
http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
- “House set to OK Souder's gun bill.” Groppe, Maureen. Indystar. NRA.com.
September 28, 2004. September 30, 2004. http://www.indystar.com/articles/8/182159-
2148-010.html
Lately, Gun control has been one of the most talked about topics in the nation. It is a very sensitive and controversial topic due to gun crime. These new restrictions not only affect people who oppose firearms, but especially the people who depend on it for protection.The right to bear arms is the peoples right to bear arms for their own defense. These are also the “political writings” of John Locke and many others.The concept of the “Right to bear arms” was derived from the Bill of Rights in 1689 which says: That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law. Citizens have a right to bear arms gun control laws will not prevent gun violence Death by gun rates were lower before gun control was out into effect.
“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
This nation was built on the right to bear arms, but this freedom is more controversial than ever. With all the school shootings and gun violence in America today at some point it may seem that just too take away all guns may be the answer to this problem. In defense, this is not the answer. If someone wants to commit a crime, gun laws will not stop them from obtaining the weapon. It is like a drug. Drugs are illegal, but every day you see someone either with, on, or recovering from a drug habit. What about for defense right to own guns to protect your family if part of your constitutional rights. Rights that are supposed to be unalienable rights. Although in this day in time, they are always trying to take away guns either by trying to pass laws or taxing guns and ammo which almost makes guns unaffordable for middle class normal American families.
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.
... can be put into place so that gun control does not limit law-abiding citizens from keeping guns on their property or person and protecting themselves or others when necessary.
In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of growing violence, rife with turmoil and crime, gun advocates feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” possessing a gun is a fundamental right, and may even be a necessity... Anti- gun lobbyists point to the same growing violence and gun related crimes in an effort to call on the government to take action. By enacting more laws and stricter control, these people not in favor of guns feel society would be better safer.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Thomas Jefferson said this quote almost 200 years ago and to this day it still applies. The right to bear arms was such a priority to the founding fathers of this country that it received the second spot on the list of the basic rights of all Americans. This right is in the process of being restricted in order to supposedly reduce crime and homicide. These gun control laws should not be permitted because they restrict law-abiding citizens’ access to firearms, leave people defenseless when a crime does arise, and have been proven futile in other countries.
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 founding fathers stated in the constitution that individuals are allowed to possess firearms. Ownership of firearms is essential for the general population. It is much better to own a gun and not ever need to use it than to be in a life or death situation in which a gun could save your life, but not have access to one. Home burglaries are a real occurrence and a firearm can ensure that you and your family aren’t harmed. If there was ever a larger terrorist attack, gun owners would be more appreciated. Those in favor of gun control would realize that firearms aren’t so bad after all. Also, the government should not have to regulate how many guns a person can own. There are many gun enthusiasts who enjoy weapons and collect them living in the United States. America is a free country and that is what makes it so great. If an individual wants to own a crazy amount of guns, he should be able to as long as the law is not being broken and no one is being harmed. Just as other citizens are allowed to have extensive collections of random things, gun owners should be allowed to do the same. Firearms help prevent freedom and liberty from being taken away from the American
The United States is a free country, and people think the right to bear arms is a basic right that every American has. This second amendment adopted in the Bill of Rights since 1791, it gives every U.S. citizen the right to keep and bear arms. Since this right got adopted, there are a lot of controversies around it, about regarding how, where, when, and why people should have the right to bear arms. This is an issue that most Americans should care about because it is about everybody’s safety. Some people say that because of people can carry gun freely, the ratio of crime and violation keeps rising. People always think gun is an evil thing that is only hurting and killing, but people do not know that it is the people who control the gun is evil, not the gun. American citizens should continue to have the rights to bear arms, because its benefits are significant to everybody; people use gun for protection, defense themselves from other threats, and also for many recreational activities.
Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep weapons, rely on the fact that the facility for such rights is preserved in the constitution. In this climate of growing violence, common with chaos and crime, gun activists feel more than ever that their position is justified. As citizens of the “Land of the Free” owning a gun is an
“A gun is a tool. It has no emotion or feelings. It cannot make decisions or take action. It does not know hate. It does not discriminate, take sides, or judge others. It is morally neutral. It is no better or worse than any other tool. A gun has no action without a user. Remember that” -Anonymous. As our world seems to grow increasingly violent, and mass shootings seem commonplace, many government leaders are pushing for certain gun laws that would ban the public from owning firearms of any sort. This is wrong, because as United States citizens, we have the right to bear arms. Despite a recent increase in gun violence within the United States, government leaders should not create laws which would restrict gun usage, should it involve magazine capacity, concealed carry, or the eradication of assault weapons for the public.
The right to bear arms has been an important conversation in America for decades. As of recent tragedies such as the Sandy Hook shooting and the Aurora Colorado Theater shooting, the debate is more heated than ever. From large-scale massacres to single fatality shootings, gun violence is unwarranted and heartbreaking. However, the Second Amendment protects individual citizens’ right to own firearms: “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,” it states (Bill of Rights). Although this part of the Bill of Rights has not been changed in United States’ history, some citizens argue that, because the Constitution is a working document, this should be adapted to fit current needs and protect communities. Citizens who wish tip the scale in favor of the community’s protection argue that guns are dangerous, easy to access, popular weapons that allow disgruntled or mentally unstable citizens to “inflict mass causalities” and were originally only intended for use in a militia (Joe Messerli). On the other hand, those who wish to benefit civilians argue that taking away guns restrains individual liberty and that gun control would prove futile because criminals would find ways such as the black market to obtain guns, weapons can serve as self-defense prevent crimes, and reasonable restrictions would be more effective than an outright ban (Joe Messerli). Both arguments have valid, well developed ideas, and both sides tend to be passionate in debate.
Living a life in America, we all get to have all the rights that included in the Constitution. One of those was the Second Amendment which is the rights to bear arm, the purpose was to protect ourselves from danger but nowadays a lot of people have take advantage of it and use it in the wrong way. I believe our government need to have a strict limit on guns possession.