...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 being the one to have the right to...
Words: 527 - Pages: 3
...The Proliferation of Gun Control 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 second amendment to the United States Constitution is one that couldn’t be clearer. Despite the fact of the obvious language of the 2nd amendment the right for American citizens to bear arms is being taken away one “gun control” law at a time. Our forefathers built this country by the use of weapons to break free from the British power. Owning and using weapons is embedded into our culture and something that shouldn’t be taken away. Letting citizens having the power to bear arms is what makes this country great compared to countries that don’t let their citizens bear arms like that of China. The proliferation of gun control laws is unconstitutional, hurting our culture and hindering citizens self defense. The roots of gun control run deep. The first law trying to ban handguns was passed in 1837 but was then ruled unconstitutional. In 1865 the “black codes” were adopted, these laws kept African Americans from owning guns or any sort of “weapon”. The purpose of these laws was to install fear in African Americans and keep them from having any power. In 1871 the National Rifle Association (NRA) was created. This organizations original purpose was to increase citizen’s marksmanship in preparation for war. Now it has blossomed into a wide spreading organization that fights for gun rights and...
Words: 1463 - Pages: 6
...Analysis of Amending Gun Laws in America Written By: Merri C. Eder Intro to American Government Instructor: Curtis Ankeny April 26, 2013 Analysis of Amending Gun Laws in America Amending gun laws, more specifically background checks and gun registration laws, is perhaps one of the most widespread debates currently occurring in America. The United States experiences tragic levels of gun violence, claiming over 30,000 lives annually, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention( CDC, 2013). For every one person who dies from a gunshot wound, two others are wounded. Every year, approximately 100,000 people are victims of gun violence in America( CDC, 2013). In addition to those who are killed or injured, there are countless others whose lives are forever changed by the deaths of and injuries to their loved ones. Gun violence touches every branch of our society in which we live. Gun violence increases the probability of deaths in incidents of domestic violence, raises the chances of fatalities by those who intend to injure others and also among those who attempt suicide, places children and young people at risk, and disproportionately affects communities of color. Mass shooting tragedies like the school shootings at Sandy Hook, at Virginia Tech in April 2007 and Northern Illinois University in February 2008 – or the 1993 office shooting in San Francisco that led to the formation of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence – receive strong...
Words: 1111 - Pages: 5
...Case: Mcdonald V. City Of Chicago Issue: Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms create an individual right of citizens to own firearms and does it enforceable against the States. Decision: Yes, the Second Amendment creates an individual rather than collective right that generally guarantees the rights of citizens to legally own guns Reasons: While the Court had never previously held the Second Amendment incorporated, they opted to do so here by citing the fundamental nature of self-defense and necessity of the right to bear arms to guarantee self-protection. Case NFIB V. Sebelius Issue: Congressional law that requires states to choose between complying with the patient protection and affordable care act or loss of federal funding for Medicaid is constitutionally valid and requiring all citizens to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional Decision: Yes, under the Taxing and Spending Clause Reason: The justices unanimously agreed that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar the suit. Congress did not intend that the payment for non-compliance with the Individual Mandate be a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. Case: Tarasoff V. Regents of UC Isssue: Whether when the rapists failure to warn plaintiffs. Tatiana’s parents fear the danger to Tatiana was a breach of duty to safeguard their patient and the public? Decision: Yes, The rapist owes a legal duty not only to his patient, but also to his patient’s would-be victim and is...
Words: 515 - Pages: 3
...Rights are not absolute simply because they can come into conflict. My right to life, for example, can come into conflict with your right to life, if I happen to try to kill you. If you resist my attempt to murder you with lethal force, my heirs cannot sue you for violating my right to life. Less dramatically, if you restrain me, I cannot sue you for loss of my right to liberty. Or take free speech: If I shout "fire!" in a crowded theater just for fun there is no fire, my right to free speech is in conflict with the rights of the other patrons to life and peace, since their lives may well be put in danger by the ensuing scramble for the exits. Generally speaking, it's accepted that government can resolve conflict between the rights of individuals, or between the rights of one individual and the rights of the general public. Hence government can put reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions on free speech, can criminalize free speech ("fighting words") designed solely to instigate criminal violence, can prohibit free assembly when it is for the sole and obvious purpose of organized crime can restrict the publication of facts or assertions that would endanger the lives of others, can search persons and property to prevent or solve crime, or keep public order, and so forth. The general principle is sometimes stated: "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." The Constitution enumerates the rights of individuals, but it doesn't say a lot of about the limits on those rights...
Words: 358 - Pages: 2
...arms is one of the rights discussed in the passage referring to Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut. On December 14, 2012 a gunman entered Sandy Hook Elementary School and killed at total of 20 children and six adults. Many states include provisions that guarantee the right to bear arms. Other states hold that right for people to bear arms in self-defense. The Supreme Court resolved the meaning of the second amendment in two important cases in 2008 and 2010. The District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that “The second amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), a case challenging Chicago’s complete ban on handguns. The court held that “that the Framers and ratifiers o the fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty. But the opinion also stated the second amendment right is not unlimited. Following that the state of New York acts quickly and the state was inspired to enact the nation’s toughest state gun regulations. All state constitutions reflect the American political tradition of Separation of powers. The separation of powers is the allocation of powers among the three branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial. These powers are separate because they each...
Words: 496 - Pages: 2
...Quashauna Howard Professor Singletary English 101 21 October 2015 Gun Debate: Where is the Middle Ground? Gun debate is a hot topic, and everybody perceives it differently. Many things can influence a person’s view on gun control, protecting their families, mass killings, self-defense, and hunting. It is important to gather information and facts when it comes to gun debate. In addition to this, the laws that are already in place are being questioned and what policies can change to show favor for both sides. Some questions being asked are who can buy a gun, types of guns available, the registration process, age, NRA guidelines, and carrying policy. There are many policies put in place to enforce laws and keep guns out of the wrong hands and keep the public safe but many questions remain. Are assault rifles needed? Weapons like these are responsible for many mass killings of innocent adults and children in America. One example is the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary that left 20 children and six adults dead also the Columbine shooting that left 15 dead and 24 injured. Many victims are left trying to put together the pieces. One victim stated, “ When you are a survivor or a victim or somebody close to you dies, it is every day you think about it, “he said. “ Gun advocates or scholars or people making money about it, they probably think about it 10 percent of how much we think about it. We take a cold shower we think about it, and we start to cry. We go to the bathroom...
Words: 870 - Pages: 4
... Singapore is a small country that emphasise strongly on the military. Due to her size, Singapore requires her military to be a ‘weapon’ so as to be able to prevent and protect the country from threats. Since the split with Malaysia in 1965, Singapore has to be self-reliant in terms of military. As stated by Shangri-La Dialogue senior fellow for Asia-Pacific Security at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, William Choong, Singapore’s greatest fears as a small country are being pressured by bigger powers and the strategic uncertainty that will arise from conflicts between great powers (Ranasinghe, 2014). Thus, Singapore should increase their defence spending to ‘up’ their military. As tensions arise in the region, there is no doubt why Singapore place a high emphasis on security. Singapore’s international relations with countries such as the United States of America allowed Singapore to achieve advanced technological skills from developed countries (Ministry of Education, 2013). Being a part of the United Nations also helped Singapore to be recognized as a sovereign state. This thus allowed Singapore to gain partnerships among countries in the world such as Japan, India and Germany. Furthermore, being in partnership with other countries, Singapore was able to get supplies from them. IHS Jane stated in a note, published in January 2014 by the CNBC, that Singapore’s firm supplier is the United States, who have supplied more than half of Singapore Armed...
Words: 1363 - Pages: 6
...Gun control laws in America began with the writing of the United States Constitution; the document that provided a framework for the young country’s government, and provided all basic rights and laws that each American has and abides by. The second amendment to the constitution is for all Americans the right to keep and bear arms. The exact language of the text sparks much debate on how this right applies to the people, but many interpret it as the right for each individual American to keep firearms for their personal use. For the last few decades, much debate has been brought upon the amendment as the need for firearms has gone down while the risk of endangerment because of them has gone up. Because of the increasing in mass gun violence and...
Words: 1477 - Pages: 6
...Defending our Constitutional Right Guns are not the problem. I believe the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution should stay the way it is. First of all, the second amendment was written by our Founding Fathers who made it very clear in the Constitution that the the people of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms. Secondly, gun control hasn’t worked in Chicago, one of our nation’s largest cities, so why should gun control even be considered? Finally, using a gun to protect and provide for your family is a necessity. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Guns shall not be restricted in the United States of America. In 1789, James Madison said, “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country,” according to the Tenth Amendment Center. George Mason defined militia as “the whole people, except for a few...
Words: 748 - Pages: 3
...Gun Control What is gun control? Gun control is a federal act that was created back in 1968. Gun control laws must be stricter, lowering crime rates and deaths. If you haven’t heard many of us Americans are known to be very blunt, and short tempered. So for a minute, just imagine a short-tempered person with a lot of anger, and they are loaded with a gun, and around you. David B. Kopel says something similar to what I had just explained. “American Citizens are too clumsy and ill-tempered to be trusted with weapons”. These are not people whom I’d trust with weapons around the country. Citizens owning guns calls for trouble like in the second quote. Evidence shows the outcome of guns,...
Words: 954 - Pages: 4
... Excessive gun control laws will not prevent crimes and accidents involving firearms. Gun control advocates are attempting to allow more gun control laws to be enforced due to school shootings and other gun involved crimes; however, gun control laws will not prevent these catastrophes. Criminals will break the law despite the fact that there are laws to prevent them from doing so. Furthermore, guns have been around for ages, and have always been a useful tool for the settlers, armies, and people that are in danger. Guns protect the average gun owning citizen from intruders into their home and also their country. Gun control laws are not going to prevent criminals from killing or committing more crimes with firearms; therefore, the average American should be permitted to own firearms to protect themselves and their families from harm's way. More gun control is not needed, education about guns and gun safety is necessary to prevent accidental gun deaths. Statistically ever since people have been taking more firearm courses the accident rate has went down tremendously; for example, since 1930 ,when gun safety courses became popular, the annual number of firearm accident deaths has decreased 81%, while the U.S. population has more than doubled and the number of firearms has increased to 4 times the amount that it was formerly.The more educated someone is about a subject the more knowledgeable they are which gives them the additional intelligence to help keep them from making...
Words: 579 - Pages: 3
...be the difference between our country and theirs? What makes their gun death rate so significantly lower than ours?" The answer is strict gun control. In 1996, Australia called for strict gun control laws, known as National Firearms Agreement which dramatically reduce firearm exposure. Since 1996, there have been zero mass shootings in Australia. Likewise, in Canada, to purchase a gun one must hold a special license called a restricted possession and acquisition license. Citizens are also restricted in where and when they can have their restricted or prohibited firearms in public (U.S. Ranks Highest in Gun Deaths). Like every argument, this is one with two sides: people who say it is important to protect the right to own guns or the second amendment and people who are in favor of stricter gun control laws. More recently, republicans sit on the protection of gun owning rights side. In a 2016 PEW Research Center report, eighty-one percent of republicans favored the protection of gun ownership, up forty-three percent since 2000. At the same time, democrats went from twenty percent to twenty-seven percent in favor of protection in the sixteen year span (Dimock). The Center for American Progress, a progressive think tank as the name implies, issued a twenty-eight point "framework" with an aim to cut down on gun violence. Their points included things like strengthening background checks, enhanced enforcement of current laws, improved data collection and analysis, enhanced oversight...
Words: 1505 - Pages: 7
...What if someone for whatever reason broke into your home, wouldn't you want the right to protect yourself and your family? The second amendment gives every American the right to protect themselves, their family, and their home. Without the second amendment Americans as a whole would have no rights to carry a gun or even own one for that matter. You might not want to own a gun but for those of us that do the second amendment is very important. The only problem with that is some people of society as well numerous people in the government think that other Americans should not have a gun. But what would happen if a new world war happened. They would be defenseless if we did get rid of gun ownership, just imagine one big defenseless America. That is why the founding fathers of America added the second amendment to the constitution... To be safe....
Words: 498 - Pages: 2
...support stricter gun control laws, and bans on high-capacity semi-automatic to automatic weapons. While I know this topic has been addressed again and again, to the point of probably being over-done, I feel very strongly about it. The right to bear arms was written in a different time in history, two hundred and twenty-three years ago. Being part of a well-regulated Militia is no longer necessary to the security of a free state. Much has changed and the threat of occupation doesn’t loom as it once did. The third amendment states that no soldier, in time of peace, can be quartered in any house without the owner’s consent. The British parliament was guilty of this with the Quartering Act in 1765, resulting in the aforementioned amendment. It stands to reason that the root of the second amendment, adopted in 1791, was to uphold the third, which was introduced in 1789. Here lies the reasoning behind my conviction that the right to bear arms is an outdated amendment. Should a foreign army demand to take over your house, pointing a gun at them would likely result in getting you killed on the spot, rather than creating an opportunity for negotiation. Just as an armed intruder in your house would probably shoot you and take your weapon, rather than run away, spooked. They are breaking into your house with...
Words: 2304 - Pages: 10
