...There has been a lot of debate surrounding the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and the purpose that it serves. To understand the Second Amendment, one must understand the history that surrounds it. The main reason that the Second Amendment was created was fear. A fear that was based on the misuse of power originating from a tyrannical monarch. The citizens of the thirteen original colonies endured many abuses at the hands of King George III. They were British citizens that were treated as though they were a conquered people, indirect contrast to the citizens living in mainland Brittan. They were subject to taxation without any form of representation in Parliament, forced to quarter British armies within the colonies without permission, unable to trade or set prices for trade without the sole consent of Brittan, colonies lacked the ability to self-govern, and unfair imprisonment. These, and other occurrences, made it...
Words: 510 - Pages: 3
...Contrary to the English thought, who were colonizers of America who believed that there would be a unified, paid-for military force capable of defending and protecting the country from external danger, the founding fathers of America believed that people would possess weapons that they could later benefit from and unite with other security forces in the event of exposure the country to any external aggression. Therefore, the Founding Fathers of America justified the legal article known as the Second Amendment in that its purpose was to facilitate national defense, protect the rights of people to self-defense, reverse historical experiences, balance power between the government and people, and offer a means of resisting dictatorship. Additionally,...
Words: 298 - Pages: 2
...Although second amendment abolitionists believe that the right to bear arms is unjustifiable, society’s moral obligation is to protect themselves at any cost and that includes the right to carry a concealed firearm, protection of their own lives, and the allowing of the right to own a firearm. The right to own a firearm should not be infringed on and should never be ratified. The right to own and carry a firearm has been a right of Americans since December 15, 1791. The second amendment has been a part of America for over 200 years. This right allows Americans to own a firearm for their own safety and protection. It also allows people to own a concealed handguns license.” A concealed handgun license is a license to carry a sidearm” in public for safety reasons. The...
Words: 776 - Pages: 4
...what he calls 15 Pro-Gun” arguments and debunks them. His first argument is to address the 2nd Amendment and how he feels about people who believe that it was written for the rights of individuals to keep and bear arms are misinformed. Mr Sager writes. “Those who make this argument are misinformed as to the original intent of the 2nd Amendment and have either been tricked by the modern gun lobby’s marketing or are actively perverting its meaning” (Segar, 2012). Although Mr. Sager makes his point with a written quote from Chief Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger about his thought on the 2nd Amendment and its meaning on protecting every Americans right to own guns. “…one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I’ve ever seen in my life time. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies—the militias—would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.” What Mr. Segar fails to realize is the credibility of his source. Because another credible source the US Supreme Court, in 2008 declared that the 2nd Amendment protected the individual’s right to own firearms. We can take what Chief Justice Burger said and except it as a credible source for the argument that the 2nd Amendment being about a government...
Words: 527 - Pages: 3
...On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was adopted after having been ratified by three-fourths of the states. The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments of the Constitution. The second amendment out of the ten that were ratified states that "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The second amendment primarily protects the rights of gun owners and allows people to legally own firearms. There have been many discussions and arguments about majority of the Constitution but none have ever been debated back and forth as much as the second amendment has in recent years. One side of the argument is that firearms that are produced and sold to the civilian market aren't covered by the second amendment due to the fact that when the second amendment was passed there were't firearms such as AR-15's, Glocks, so on and so forth. That side of the argument often tries to attack the second amendment by trying to pass stricter gun laws or by trying to completely repeal the second amendment. On the other hand however, many people believe that laws regarding the second amendment are sufficient enough or too strict as is. The second amendment was introduced to protect the people. It was not just some law to allow people to simply just own firearms but it was instituted to keep...
Words: 605 - Pages: 3
...Was the Second Amendment Designed to Protect an Individual’s Right to Own Guns? People have a lot of different views of if the Second Amendment really was designed to protect an individual’s right to own guns. Robert Shalhope believes that the Second Amendment helped Americans to own guns so that they could maintain freedom and liberty. Lawrence Delbert on the other hand believes that the second amendment was made just for “well-regulated militia.” The well-regulated militia in our day and age would be more like cops or the armed forces, anybody protecting over the people of America. The Second Amendment can be interpreted in a lot of different ways. These two authors have two opposite views on the Second Amendment and what it says. Each...
Words: 717 - Pages: 3
...The Second Amendment For many 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. The Second Amendment...
Words: 2267 - Pages: 10
...The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended meaning. For example, some people believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from banning or prohibiting the owning of firearms, or at the very least, the Amendment indirectly states that getting rid of or restricting citizens who own these types of weapons is unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars believe that because of...
Words: 1465 - Pages: 6
...The Controversy of the Second Amendment of the Constitution 997 words (2.8 double-spaced pages) Red (FREE) I. INTRODUCTION: The Second Amendment to the Constitution(Second Amendment) of the United States of America(USA) is one of the most controversial. The Second Amendment specifically grants that, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" The way that an individual interprets the wording of the Second Amendment influences their point of view on who has the right to "keep and bear arms" (Amendment 2). The controversy brought on by the Second Amendment is because the Second Amendment does not clearly define whom "the people" are. This ambiguity has left room for action by legislative bodies and the courts to pass laws and make interpretations that influence the way this Amendment is applied and enforced. The Second Amendment says, "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." (Amendment 2). A central argument put forth by gun-control advocates is that since there is no longer a "militia", that individuals should lose their rights to own a gun. They often assert that the term "militia" should now be defined as each state's National Guard or Reserves. On the other hand, anti gun control advocates argue that the Second Amendment clearly states that the people have the right to own and bear arms even if they are not part of an organized...
Words: 1005 - Pages: 5
...When it comes to the Second Amendment, the United States Constitution 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." People who are in favor of gun control and gun bans argue that the Second Amendment only applies to the "militia," by which they mean only the military and police. In other words, according to such an argument, the Second Amendment does not protect the right of an individual to own a weapon, but merely the right of the government to possess weapons. This is like saying people have the right to defend themselves, but only if it's the police or the army defending them; you can't defend yourself on your own. This argument is completely illogical. It is true that in exchange for living in a free country, individuals do give up certain things. For example, some would say people give up the right to determine whether or not someone is guilty of a crime on their own. Instead, people submit to the laws of their country, leaving this...
Words: 489 - Pages: 2
...In 1975 the District of Columbia pass the Firearms Control Regulations Act which prohibited guns at home from being functional firearms and also made it nearly impossible to own a gun. This created conflict with the second amendment in the constitution, 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.” It can be seen this law D.C. passed violates the constitution due to citizens not being able to have a functional firearm at their home. This caused the case of District of Columbia v. Heller to arise. Dick Anthony Heller, a police officer in D.C., applied for a one-year license that he would use to own a handgun at his place of residence. He was then denied the license. Heller sued D.C. on the account of not upholding his second amendment right. The district court’s response was it was not valid and it was dismissed. It was appealed by Heller and The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided that making people have...
Words: 2391 - Pages: 10
...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 to the United States Constitution provides the citizens a means of protection against the unjust excesses of government.[2] The Framers placed this guarantee in the Bill of Rights because they considered the right to keep and bear arms peculiarly important and also uniquely vulnerable to infringement. The Amendment's command protects individuals against even popular conceptions of the public good. In addition to this protection within the United States Constitution,[3] the constitutions of forty-three states guarantee the right to keep and bear arms.[4] Despite the constitutional authority for this right, legislators and judges have consistently attempted to devalue it. Methods such as giving misleading labels to select firearms like "assault weapons"[5] or "Saturday Night Specials"[6] have been used to justify incremental disarmament.[7] American jurisprudence has deliberately devalued the right to keep and bear arms by disingenuously interpreting the right so as to effect a gradual change in American culture. To this end, for example, the Seventh Circuit has already upheld a civilian handgun ban by dismissing an historical analysis of the Constitution: "The debate surrounding the adoption of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments ... has no relevance on the resolution of the...
Words: 7782 - Pages: 32
...gun ownership, and gun control in the Second Amendment. She begins her essay with a fact that she is not anti-gun, she is pro-knife. Also another fact is that as a civil libertarian she supports the Second Amendment. During the all essay she urged us to consider the pros of knifes, giving the benefits of the knife she stating that, “A general substitution of knifes for gun would promote physical fitness.” She is absolutely convinced that the guns are more dangerous than knifes, because the guns can ricochet, and it is a fact that people are less likely to be killed by cleaning their knife as they would be cleaning their gun. In this way the author shows the probability of accidental killing, and indicates the accuracy why the guns should be taken under strict control. She believes that the Second Amendment has a reliability and means exactly what is says, “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”, and she refer that a 14 years old youths, and crazy religions that should not owned a guns, because they are not a part of the Amendment. She insists that guns should be just in militia hands, and citizens also are not part of this Amendment. Then Molly Ivins infer that guns in the citizen’s hands will destroy the security of the state, also she refer that nobody know that exactly Thomas Jefferson was thinking then he wrote this Amendment, so it should not be considered directly...
Words: 699 - Pages: 3
..."The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a Good Guy with a gun." - Wayne Lapierre. Our founding fathers would agree with this statement; as firearms were a tool that brought about the birth of the United States from the grip of tyranny. Which is why they chose to include the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. Since then however, many people that call themselves Americans wish to dispose of this Right. The right that gives Americans the power to defend themselves, their family or friends, their property, and most importantly their civil rights. Whoever apposes this view, has the ultimate warped view of reality, due to the arguments they make, and the statistics that do not back them up. This is why everyone should appose gun...
Words: 968 - Pages: 4
...stereo. Luckily, my friend was able to grab his phone from his pocket and call 911. He recovered well but the suspects were never found. A few weeks after his release from the hospital, we both took a concealed carry course. I can only imagine what the outcome would have been if my friend was able to reach for a handgun instead of his phone. The offenders would have been caught right then and there for sure. If he owned a gun and was carrying it at the time of the incident, he could have properly defended himself. While guns have proven to be a dangerous part of our society, I believe that they are necessary in the overall safety and well being of our Country. In “Get a Knife, Get a Dog, but Get Rid of Guns,” Molly Ivins begins her argument by stating she is not anti-gun, but rather pro-knife. Ivins states that, “A general substitution of knives for guns would promote physical fitness.” While Ivins’ sense of humor is very apparent, it does not do much to set the proper tone. It is obvious to anyone that both knives and guns can inflict extreme physical harm on a person. This being said, they are hardly equal. A knife does not stab someone with the pull of a trigger; it takes a little more effort than that. Unless thrown with a certain amount of skill, a knife cannot injure someone from a far distance. A gun however, can do these things with ease. Furthermore, Ivins’ idea that knifes promote fitness does nothing for a crippled individual, or someone too elderly to even...
Words: 1098 - Pages: 5
