...District's handgun ban and affirmed an individual's constitutional right to bear arms. The case, decided by the court's conservative bloc, was originally viewed as a setback for advocates of gun safety. But embracing the ruling could actually create a new paradigm for gun control. The gun debate of the past two decades has devolved into a permanent tugofwar between the National Rifle Association (NRA) and advocates of gun safety. One side has viewed the Second Amendment as absolute; the other has tried to pretend that it doesn't exist. The result is a failure to find any consensus, even as one mass shooting after another underscores the need for sensible reform. Heller told the two sides that they were each only halfright: The right to bear arms is constitutionally guaranteed, but reasonable limitations are allowed. The first part is something many guncontrol advocates did not wish to hear, but it was a needed dose of reality. Before Heller, the goal of some guncontrol activists was an outright ban on handguns. Heller removed that possibility for good. Progressives should move on and work within the ruling. This means no longer harboring ideas of a future liberal majority on the court someday overturning Heller. It also means that states and localities should abide by the spirit of the ruling, not just its letter, and not seek to impose undue burdens upon lawabiding citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The truth is, it was bad strategy to ever deny an...
Words: 683 - Pages: 3
...What is the Bill of Rights and how important is it? The Bill of Right is the collective name for the first ten Amendments of the United States Constitution, which limits the power of the US federal government. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty including freedoms of religion, speech, a free press, free assembly, and free association, as well as the right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that no man could obtain excessive power, which could infringe the citizen’s rights. The Bill of Rights retains an important role in American society as it outlines the rights and freedoms of the individuals. This allows them to use the Bill of Rights as a reference point if they ever find themselves in a situation where they need to defend themselves according to the rights that they claim. This can be seen in Amendment V of the Bill of Rights, whereby a suspected criminal has the rights to not be a witness against himself so as to prevent self incrimination. The Bill of Rights shows the rights of the citizens as it gives individuals the right to keep and bear arms, as outlined in Amendment I where the Bill of Rights clearly shows the right and freedoms of the citizens. However the Bill of Rights can be interpreted in different ways which can lead to inconsistencies in the treatment of the individuals, this is most common depending on where that individual lives. This vagueness has caused a clear debate in the death penalty, where...
Words: 418 - Pages: 2
...States v Rahimi, I agree with the majority opinion ruling. This case centers around a variety of constitutional issues at hand. One of the fundamental constitutional issues in this case is the interpretation and application of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is centered around the right to keep and bear arms, which is a constitutional issue that is prevalent in this case. Another major issue is whether individuals with domestic violence restraining orders should be allowed to keep and possess their weapons. In this case, Zackey Rahimi challenged the law that prohibits individuals such as himself from owning firearms, arguing that it restricted his second amendment right to keep and bear arms. In the case of United States v Rahimi,...
Words: 749 - Pages: 3
...PS1350 Week 1 Submit Analysis The first ten amendments of the US Constitution make up what is known as the Bill of Rights. Written by James Madison in response to the requests from many of the states for better constitutional protection for individual freedoms, the Bill of Rights lists specific prohibitions on governmental power. I have chosen to discuss the second amendment for this week’s analysis. The second amendment of the US Constitution 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.” In more simple terms the second amendment says that it is the right of the people, under certain regulations, to possess and carry firearms. However like any other legal right it has its limitations. Now no state has the authority to take your second amendment rights from you but they can place limits on it. Usually these limits are placed using licensing requirements and bans on certain guns in a certain class. Being a registered owner of firearms, this amendment is very important to me. I have yet been in a situation where the use of my gun was needed, and I hope that that situation never transpires. On a day to day basis we all venture out into a world of unknown evils, where at a moment’s notice that situation could occur. This amendment gives me the right to own a firearm, and in turn allows me to feel safer in my daily life. If not for the second amendment I would not have...
Words: 478 - Pages: 2
...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 Second Amendment has been the subject of controversy only for roughly the last 80 years. Even though, as some argue, the Framers themselves argued over its wording, the almost universally accepted opinion was that it guaranteed an individual right. It was in 1934 that the first attempt at universal gun control on a national level occurred. In 1934, the United States was at the height of the Great Depression (Kangas, 1997). In 1933, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution had finally been repealed, marking the end of the noble experiment known as “prohibition”. The fourteen years of prohibition had nurtured an atmosphere of speakeasies, bootlegging, gangsters, and mafia. The year following the repeal of prohibition was marred by some of the worst gangster violence in American history. John Dillinger and Baby Face Nelson were on the run. Bonnie and Clyde were killed in that year (1934 in the United States, 2013). The nation had just finished its war with Al Capone’s gang (Al Capone, 2013). The people were tired of the unrestrained violence and, in an apparent classic effort to obtain safety at the expense of liberty, were willing to accept limits on the right to bear arms. Although this discussion is not about the history of gun control but about the right to bear arms, it bears mentioning that, in almost all cases in which federal gun control...
Words: 2488 - Pages: 10
...solution it is a touchy issue among politicians and very few laws are passed with regards to either argument. 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” (Wikipedia). This amendment has been the largest reason why there is not stricter gun control because no politician will do anything that comes remotely close to going against the Constitution. Both state and federal courts have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the "individual rights" model, which holds that individuals hold the right to bear arms, and the "collective rights" model, which holds that the right depends on militia membership. The collective rights model has been discarded by the U.S. Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model. The primary U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment cases include District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago(2010). In Heller and McDonald the U.S. Supreme Court supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally known as the method by which U.S. militias have historically been armed. In November 2011 the Supreme Court turned down the appeal of a man who said the state’s restrictive gun...
Words: 1428 - Pages: 6
...Amendment to the Constitution is the right to keep and bear arms by every law abiding citizen in the United States. In this dialog, we will look at the aforementioned Supreme Court cases to better understand the limitations of the Central Governments ability to interfere with this individual right. In the case of the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the primary issue in this case was the complete ban of handguns in homes within the District of Columbia unless they are unserviceable. This case was brought by Dick Heller in an action claiming that a complete ban violates the 2nd Amendment right guaranteed to the citizens of this country. In the case of Lopez vs. the United States, Congress attempted to control where individuals could carry weapons through the invalid use and exercise of the commerce clause power. At first look into the District of Columbia vs. Heller case, the power to solicit and control gun regulation belongs to the States, not the Federal Government. The District of Columbia is not a state and therefore does not possess the authority to install gun regulations on the citizenry living there as they are residents of Maryland and Virginia and are so governed by the gun laws which exist in those states depending on which state they are located in. The Supreme Court stated that when the Constitution referred to the “right of the people” that this refers to individual rights and not collective rights. Additionally, to keep or bear arms means literally to hold in one’s...
Words: 1356 - Pages: 6
...The Truth about Guns and Rights Christine Tarver COM220 February 17, 2013 Lori Pash Amendments amend provisions to the Constitution. The Second Amendment’s provisions are in regard to a militia with the right to bear arms. The word militia is not specifically defined in the Constitution or within the Second Amendment. With no specific definition, this brings about many debates of whose rights these documents protect. The word militia in these terms can be defined as a “general” militia, made up of all able bodied men. This was a check on governmental entities and the belief that people could be protected by individual rights. In 2008, for the first time in American history the Supreme Court defined the right to bear arms. This took place in District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court stated the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. Gun control laws in America are responsible for the possibility of who can or cannot purchase and possess guns; laws also give valid reasons to gun ownership. The right to bear arms has limitations and debates. The second amendment does not protect people against any and every weapon readily available. In fact there are obstacles one must cross before they legally have full ownership of a gun. The rules, regulations, and laws according to this process vary greatly from state...
Words: 1545 - Pages: 7
...Week 5 Assignment PHI103: Informal Logic 29 November, 2012 Are there any legitimate restrictions on gun ownership? Introduction The modern era is heavily dependent on the TV as their chief source of information or news about the rest of the world. Since the nations have simultaneous access to the violent new stories that are exaggerated and sensationalized to generate more and more ratings all over the international television channels, newspapers and even the internet, a lot of people have started thinking whether the U.S. Constitutions’ 2nd Amendment is restrictive enough or not. According to a case in the Supreme Court recently, there was an evaluation of the said Amendment and its context. A question needed answering which were whether there were any legitimate restrictions on gun ownership. According to the ruling of the Supreme Court, other Constitutional Amendments and the dangerous times, there are not many legitimate restrictions in the ownership of firearms. Thesis Statement “There are not a lot of legitimate restrictions in ownership of firearms.” Discussion In the Court case of Heller versus District of Columbia (D.C), there are arguments which cover almost all possible aspects of the 2nd Amendment. From the year 1975, Columbian District has put a ban within the residents of D.C’s homes, on the unlocked firearms’ possession. The residents were required by law to store any and all firearms which were permissible in the Columbian District disassembled...
Words: 1818 - Pages: 8
...tragedy makes sense like blaming airplanes for the 9-11 attacks. The problem lies with the perpetrator, not the tool used to commit the crime. It is an illusion that further gun control will protect the public since no law, no matter how restrictive, can protect us from people who decide to commit violent crimes. Guns should never be banned in the United States, because the possession of guns ultimately helps improve public safety. Embodied in the Second Amendment to the Constitution is the truth that self-governing individuals should bear the responsibility for defending themselves. The 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. Cramer and Joseph examined the history of pistols in early America that tells us the Framers' original intent in protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms with no apparent limitations concerning handguns. Many pro gun control supporters adhere to the belief that the availability of guns make violent crime happen and, more importantly, that criminal violence in general can be reduced by limiting access to firearms. This is a testable empirical proposition. Research shows that disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence. For example, in Washington, D.C. and New York City, severe gun control laws had been applied, yet Washington D.C. is the "murder...
Words: 699 - Pages: 3
...Gun Control in America Peter Z Bliss ENG/215 February 2, 2012 Kim Holloway Gun Control in America Gun control is a debate topic that comes up every election and when a major event happens that involving guns. Pro-gun lobbyists say “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” [ (Hagan, 2007) ] the anti-gun advocates want to take away the right to bear arms. This topic has no right or wrong answer it is a preference of the individual. This is why gun control is such a fiercely debated topic. Implementing gun control Gun control cannot determine an accurate measurement according to research as there are two key components to the research lacking. What is the crime rate with no gun control? There is no documented research showing what the baseline is without gun control. Different government parties have each placed their own gun controls as a universal solution. These controls are mandatory locks sold with every gun purchase, and limitations on different classification of guns a citizen may own (Moorhouse & Wanner, 2006). Part two of measuring gun control is making sure the gun control laws are in place along with proper enforcement of the law. An example of this could have a blanket gun control law for a state. Each county within that state will potentially have a different outcome of this law. With the effort their law enforcement offices and judicial system place on enforcing that law. Gun control law enforcement is a large part of the accurate measurement...
Words: 1313 - Pages: 6
...the right to bear arms. Even though this guarantee was written with no constraints, there are now laws that limit certain aspects of gun ownership. The reasons for gun control fall under the flag of public safety. Though there are many safety reasons why private ownership of firearms should be banned, these arguments are outweighed not only by the need for protection, but because the limitation of ownership rights could become dangerous to personal freedom. When the U.S. Constitution was written, some delegates thought Militia was military forces because the Federal Government had its own army to protect the people. The second amendment was made in response to the fear of being helpless before a standing professional army. "Aristotle said that decisions of a leader 'backed by a standing army' would be different from those made by a leader 'awed by the fear of an armed people'" (The Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, 28). Elbridge Gerry, a delagate to the Constitutional convention from Massachusetts, was an activist for the right of the Militia to bear arms. When asked what use a Militia has, he responded: "What sir, is the use of a Militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty" (The Commission of the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution, 26). On December 15, 1791, Virginia ratified the Bill of Rights, making...
Words: 2352 - Pages: 10
...beliefs. ii. Cultural beliefs. iii. Familial upbringing. iv. Gender bias. II. Debate arguments for and against banning guns in the United States. c. New gun control laws alone will not solve violent crimes/massacres. Law abiding citizens are not the problem, and a ban law will not stop criminals from obtaining weapons. d. Consequences of banning guns from law abiding citizens. The American people have the right to protect themselves. Other countries have banned guns and then massacred the population. e. Banning guns in the United States will prevent the mentally ill from procuring weapons in order to perpetrate mass killings. f. There is no need for weapons to be owned by the private sector. v. Hunting is not a viable option for feeding families anymore. vi. Overthrowing the government is not a valid argument since we live in a democracy. g. Going back to the constitution: The Second Amendment doesn't allow for any limitations on the right to bear arms. But there are always loop holes within it. III. In conclusion, many arguments are being discussed. h. Many viewpoints need to be considered. i. Banning weapons for the sake of the United States population is needed for the safety of society. vii. Remove guns from the hands of the mentally ill will take drastic steps to reduce the violence occurring on a daily basis. viii. Hunting has become a sport, no longer...
Words: 356 - Pages: 2
...The second Amendment is saying that no one can take away a gun from people, not even the military can get their guns taken away because they have the right to own and purchase a gun. Everyone in the United States of America can have a gun and are allowed to use it, as long as they follow the law for gun safety. The government can tighten the gun laws, but they have no right to take away a gun from anyone. Some people are not careful when it comes to handling guns, even some military members are not very careful with their guns and hurt people. “Gun control laws argue “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”” (ProQuest staff). Guns can kill people, but people kill people by using a gun. Should the laws for gun control be tightened? The laws for gun control should be tightened, but the laws should not ban guns entirely because people should be able to have guns. Because many people do not know how to control themselves around a gun. Not everyone should have a gun. People in the military, hunters...
Words: 909 - Pages: 4
...Senior Research Project: Is the right to bear arms ethical? Lucas Van Duyn Senior Seminar: Business Ethics Dr. Jewe July 31, 2012 Introduction to the Project: In the United States, research into firearms and violent crime is fraught with difficulties, associated with limited data on gun ownership and use, firearms markets, and aggregation of crime data. Research studies into gun violence have primarily taken one of two approaches: case-control studies and social ecology. Gun ownership is usually determined through surveys, proxy variables, and sometimes with production and import figures. In statistical analysis of homicides and other types of crime, which are rare events, these data tend to have poison distributions, which also presents methodological challenges to researchers. (Just Facts, 2010) Americans own an estimated 270 million firearms, approximately 90 guns for every 100 people. In 2009, guns took the lives of 31,347 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings. This is the equivalent of more than 85 deaths each day and more than three deaths each hour. 66,769 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2009. Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2009, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents. Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average...
Words: 10549 - Pages: 43
