...The right to keep and bear arms meaning is so controversial of the rights in the Bill of Rights. To keep and bear arms has got a meaning. It may seem as if possessing arms is distinct from bearing arms but possession is taken as being necessary for bearing of arms. Oxford dictionary defines to bear arms as carry arms. The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary also defines bear arms as to carry or possess fire arms. Several lawyers and authors view to bear arms as applying only to the use of arms by military but the court points out that this term also has hidden meaning. Patrick J. Charles analyzed keep and bear arms and he later on concluded that both were legally accepted and describes arms in military.The right to keep and bear arms meaning is so controversial of the rights in the Bill of Rights. To keep and bear arms has got a meaning. It may seem as if possessing arms is distinct from bearing arms but possession is taken as being necessary for bearing of arms. Oxford dictionary defines to bear arms as carry arms. The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary also defines bear arms as to carry or possess fire arms. Several lawyers and authors view to bear arms as applying only to the use of arms by military but the court points out that this term also has hidden meaning. Patrick J. Charles analyzed keep and bear arms and he later on concluded that both were legally accepted and describes arms in military.The right to keep and bear arms meaning is so controversial of the rights...
Words: 388 - Pages: 2
...citizen have to give up their rights to the Second Amendment. It was written for a reason and therefore the citizens of this country should abide by it. 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." some might argue that only the regulated militia are to keep and bear arms, but to qualify for this all a person has to do be is a free citizen of this very country (The Second Amendment: Does the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Guarantee an Individual Right to Bear Arms?). Any citizen of the United States should not be denied the right to the Second Amendment,...
Words: 945 - Pages: 4
...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 militia. II. ANTI GUN CONTROL ACTIVISTS VIEWS AND BASIS Anti-gun control activists interpret the Second Amendment as saying that any individual, weather he be in the military or not, should be allowed to own firearms. Anti-gun control activists believe that the constitutional right granted by the...
Words: 1005 - Pages: 5
...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
...Arms, Militia and the Rights of the People Craig Parry, Jody Strickling, Quinton Farmer, Nathan Farmer, Robert Oldham University of Phoenix HIS/301 Instructor: William Gillespie June 29th, 2009 Arms, Militia and the Rights of the People “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.”(2nd amendment, U.S Constitution) The framers of the Constitution wanted to create a government that was governed by the people. They felt the best way to control the government was through “checks” to make sure the government did not have too much power. The founders decided one way to check the government was to allow each citizen the right to bear arms. Originally, Section one; Article eight of the Constitution was written to give the Federal Government power to raise, organize and maintain a militia. This was vital to keeping the freedoms they had secured from Brittan. However, they did not want the Government to have “a standing army” that could impose on the rights of the people. On one side, the government had to be powerful enough to defend the country, but not so powerful that it would infringe on the liberty of the people. The leaders felt by allowing each person the right to bear arms would keep the government in check from imposing its will on the country. After the Constitution was written, the leaders had to convince each state to ratify the Constitution. Many of...
Words: 1368 - Pages: 6
...solution of this repeated problem is to add limitations on the right to bear arms or the means to keep a weapon. President Barack Obama recently stated that, “We know that states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths. So the notion that gun laws don’t work, or just will make it harder for law-abiding citizens and criminals to still get their guns is not borne out by the evidence.” This thus shows that there are issues disregarding whether fire arm restrictions have an impact on American citizens. As a result...
Words: 1146 - Pages: 5
...Amendment 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.” As it is stated in the amendment, the people should not be infringed on their right to keep and bear arms. The people who are not involved with gun violence should not be punished by getting their right to bear and keep arms away. Though some individuals use arms for violence, this does not mean that the government should restrict the law abiding citizens the ability to keep and bear arms. Some individuals believe taking away firearms is not infringing on the people’s right to bear arms, but this is exactly what it is. Though some people should be restricted from bearing arms, the government has no right to infringe on the law abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear firearms in any way. (1) Although stricter gun control laws should not be the answer to gun violence and crime rates involving firearms, there is some logic to restricting some individuals from being able to possess and use a firearm for any reason. According to Gun Facts, some states prohibit those who were convicted of crimes from being able to possess firearms. If a criminal uses a firearm to create a situation where the firearm is used to enforce violence or in a way it poses danger to other individuals, then that convicted felon should never be able to bear arms or possess any firearm for any reason. The people who use firearms in this way should be the...
Words: 1690 - Pages: 7
...commonly referred to as, “the right to bear arms”, is written as follows: “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 amendment was adopted along with 9 other amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, on December 15, 1791. At that point, it was merely a federal provision, and the states varied on their choices of how to include the right to bear arms in their own constitution. In fact, some chose not to include it at all. It has been described as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense. Political thought at the time was rightfully concerned about political corruption and governmental tyranny. A personal right to bear arms was a potential check against tyranny. The wording of the amendment is somewhat ambiguous, and has been subjected to much interpretation. Additionally, the exact wording and punctuation of the amendment changes from document to document, until its final version, the way it appears in the Bill of Rights. In modern commentary, the different opinions have been classified into 3 interpretive models: 1) Individual- rights model → it is the right of an individual to own and possess firearms. 2) The collective model → the right belongs to people collectively rather than individuals; the rights only purpose is to enable states to maintain a militia. 3) Modified collective model → the right only applies for those actively...
Words: 1033 - Pages: 5
...our Second Amendment right which allowed us to carry and bear arms in the United States. Gun control has been a big topic in the united states for years now. Taking away any right to bear arms is a huge breach in our second amendment constitution rights. If these constitutional rights keep being challenge, this country will no longer be the land of the free. These rights are ours as Americans. It is our decision of whether we support them or not. That decision cannot and should not be made for us. I am for carrying and gun ownership. The first gun law to be passed in the US was in Georgia in 1837 which banned handguns in that state, later ruled unconstitutional and thrown out. Then in 1927 the Mailing of Firearms Act banned the shipping of concealable weapons. Throughout the years the gun laws have been altered in many ways in an effort to keep citizens safer. So should U.S. Citizens have the right to carry arms? What affect have the current/past gun control laws had? Is the government focusing on the wrong means for a solution? Is it possible that people just need to be better educated with firearms and firearm safety? These are some of the questions that I will answer in this speech. Should United States citizens have the right to carry arms? The answer is clearly “YES” This is our second amendment “the right of the people to keep and to bear arm” as stated in the United States constitution. It is our right and privilege to carry arms if we choose. Some...
Words: 1319 - Pages: 6
...Civil Rights According to Weiggarten(Weiggarten)Texas has a long history about the right to ownership of guns. The history dates back and was initiated by the American Revolution attempt to oppose the disarming of citizens. When Texas was commissioned as a state, it had a law written in the constitution about ownership of arms. Before Texas lost during the civil war it had already established a strong constitution which allowed the citizens town fire arms. The act in the 1845 constitution stated “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of him and the state (Weiggarten).” The law stated, “Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe (Weiggarten).” In early 1970s voted out of the State’s government, and the governor was attacked by a group of armed civilians. The legislature was accorded the authority of regulating ownership of arms as a way of fighting criminal activities. The law stated “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime (Weiggarten).”The Republicans came up with laws that more improved increments especially on gun control. The republicans are advocating for full protections which were lost during the civil wars. In his discussion (Volokh...
Words: 716 - Pages: 3
...The 2nd Amendment of the Constitution addresses the United States militia and the right to bear arms. For many years now, there has been a debate on the true interpretation of the amendment. Many believe it is interpreted as the individual's right to bear arms. These people think that having stronger gun control laws is unconstitutional and violates their 2nd Amendment rights. This is untrue, the 2nd Amendment refers to the state’s militia having the right to bear arms, not the right of any individual. In one year, 2,624 children die from acts of gun violence. 1,591 children are murdered, 853 children commit suicide, and 123 are killed unintentionally (Brady Campaign). But all of these tragedies could have been prevented. The 2nd 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” (Constitution Center). But in recent years, this amendment has yet to be accurately interpreted. Many believe the 2nd Amendment is speaking only of the right to bear arms and the levels of gun control. Advocates of gun control...
Words: 950 - Pages: 4
...The Right to Bear Arms One of the main controversies in America today is if people should have the right to bear arms. The true question being-do guns kill mores lives than they save? Even though some argue that people should have the right to bear arms, guns should not be sold or owned by citizens because guns account for a high number of crimes and the national guard is in place to protect the states and the people. The right to bear arms is placed in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 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.” (“Right to Bear Arms”) A lot of people argue that the Second Amendment gives the people individual rights to own guns, and the government should not restrict this right. Many believe the people should have the right to protect themselves and their family by having a gun in their home in case of emergencies....
Words: 534 - Pages: 3
...Gun Control in the United States Gun control is a very controversial topic. Many believe that the people of the United States have the right to bear arm. Others believe that guns in general should be banned from our country. Is it the people or the weapons that are causing violence in our society? The Second Amendment to the Constitution, which concerns the right to bear arms, is always a major, debated issue. Gun rights and gun control groups have been lobbying Congress for decades to change legislation in their respective favors. Both in 2008 and in 2010, the gun issue has reached the nation’s highest court. In the 2008 Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller the court ruled that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own a gun for personal use. But the 5-4 decision only applied to federal laws but not local and state laws. A major key case to gun debate was in 1939, United States v. Jack Miller 307 U.S. 174. In this case, the Supreme Court was asked whether the Second Amendment protected Miller's right not to register a "sawed off" shotgun, despite a federal law requiring it. The Supreme Court examined the original records of Congress to determine why the Second Amendment was written into the Constitution. The Supreme Court then ruled that Miller's shotgun was not for a militia-type purpose and that it therefore was not protected by the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court further explained that at the time the Second Amendment was adopted...
Words: 1026 - Pages: 5
...Since December 5, 1791 the people have had the right to keep and bear arms. This amendment has been in effect for more than a century. However, throughout time, many people have tried to abolish or restrict this amendment. After tragic events that have been caused by some misusing their Second Amendment right, some have debated the interpretation of the Second Amendment. By abolishing citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, it is like exterminating citizen’s right of freedom of speech and religion. This has initiated controversy around the world. James Madison composed the Second Amendment in 1791(Garret). The Second Amendment declares, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to...
Words: 546 - Pages: 3
...would only create a bigger black market. Also, citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms as stated in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. One major debate over gun control is the Second Amendment. It 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.” There are many different arguments over this amendment. One argument is if the second amendment was created to ensure the state militias were a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to bear arms? Back then, militia stood for all men who were capable of bearing arms. Today’s militia now refers to the National Guard in every state. The second amendment clearly says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Therefore, the right to bear arms was meant for everyone, not just a militia. Also, many gun owners use their handguns for hunting and target shooting. “Every year millions of handgun owners practice or compete in marksmanship competitions, sight in their guns in advance of hunting season, or perfect personal protection skills. Hundreds of thousands participate in thousands of local, state, regional and national handgun matches annually, using a wide variety of pistols and revolvers in a broad range of formal competitions” (NRA). Gun control laws violate our right to bear arms, and would prevent millions of handgun owners from hunting and target shooting. An...
Words: 910 - Pages: 4
