ipl-logo

Argumentative Essay On Gun Control

2700 Words11 Pages

Gun Control In light of such tragedies as the Newtown and Aurora shootings in Connecticut and Colorado, respectively, there has been a public outcry for stricter gun control laws such as a ban on assault weapons and stronger background checks. Our society has a long history quoting the second amendment’s right to bear arms as a prime example on both sides of the argument. The opposition states that we should keep the Constitution the way the framers wanted, that our “right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” However, the supporters of gun control claim that the framers wrote the Constitution according to the time it was written and that we should evolve and amend the Constitution to reflect the current era. In the time the Constitution …show more content…

An AR-15, the kind of weapon used to murder 20 children and 6 adults in the Newtown massacre, and 12 people in the theatre shooting in Aurora, Colorado, is a semiautomatic weapon modeled after the military’s M-16 and M4 (Goode, 2013). An assault rifle such as the AR-15, serves no purpose on our streets other than to appease gun advocates and collectors of such items. It needs to be taken into consideration what would happen if these weapons were to fall into the wrong hands. Senator Diane Feinstein is pushing for a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban originally passed in 1994 but left to expire in 2004. This bill would prohibit the sale, manufacture, transfer, and importation of over 150 assault-style weapons, and ban the sale of large-capacity magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but excludes most handguns and more than 2,200 hunting and sporting rifles (Situation Room, 2013). “Once you have been through one of these episodes,” Feinstein states, recalling finding Supervisor Harvey Milk’s body following the assassination of him and New York Mayor George Moscone in 1978, “once you see what the crime scene is like – it isn’t like the movies. It changes your view of weapons” (Situation Room, 2013). It would seem, from Feinstein’s point of view at least, that most of those against …show more content…

In the opinion of those against gun control, it was not the framer’s intention to limit gun ownership to just the militia – which is a definition wrongly translated in current days to define just the National Guard – but to every man who is qualified and able. Poe brings up the example of U.S. Justice Department attorney William B. Mateja, who insisted, when questioned, that the Second Amendment only applied to militiamen – the National Guard in our day. This is a position that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) shares. “If Mateja and the ACLU are correct,” Poe states, “then the gun rights of individual Americans would be exactly the same with or without the Second Amendment. Either way, they would be nonexistent” (p.142-143). The intentions of the framers is a notable question to ask. Why would they include the Second Amendment if it wasn’t needed? The right for a National Guard to bear arms is a natural right and isn’t necessarily one that needs to be written down to be guaranteed. How else would the Guard defend and protect our country against those who want to harm us if not with weapons? The term “militia” is meant to mean able-bodied men between the ages of sixteen and sixty who are capable and required to bear arms (Poe, 2001, p. 145); this implies that the amendment has been wrongly translated by Mateja, the ACLU,

Show More
Related
983 Words | 4 Pages

I hold that the decision involves a distorted interpretation of an antiquated amendment, with the majority opinion utilizing their preferred reading of the amendment to cater to their agenda. A more natural reading of the amendment demonstrates that the Framers’ intent encompassed an individual’s right to own arms for military service only. Moreover, when addressing the effect of the clause, as advised to the Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803), the present-day translation of the amendment shows that its devastating effects on present-day society call for an updated interpretation of the amendment. Therefore, the District of Columbia decision should be promptly overturned, and the question of gun control outside of the militia context left to the decision of directly elected legislative

Read More
685 Words | 3 Pages

This touches on the second part of the amendment, that the people are to be armed, and their right to bear arms shall not be infringed. In fact, when putting the two parts together, this amendment almost outlines a responsibility of the American citizen. Because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of this nation, and the rights of the people, their right to own weapons shall not be

Read More
715 Words | 3 Pages

Constitution, the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, has been the most publicly contentious of late. With the spate of mass shooting tragedies that made headlines in the past year, the meaning and intentions of the Second Amendment is once again being openly debated. As Voice of America reports, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure the protected basic rights, including the right to bear arms, that they enjoyed as Englishmen. In fact, English laws even required that men practice using their firearms should they ever be called to defend the nation

Read More
998 Words | 4 Pages

To be able to preserve it’s people’s liberties, the founding fathers found it essential for the entire nation to bear arms, so even without the militia the people could stand

Read More
1205 Words | 5 Pages

In addition, “militia…” in the eighteenth century was defined as every free able bodied white male citizen at the age of eighteen to forty-five years old (Roleff 68). “A well regulated militia” is stated as the first clause to ensure that citizens will never have their firearms taken away to protect themselves. As a result, the clause created a deterrence against tyranny by the government, which in return provided citizens

Read More
923 Words | 4 Pages

Following to this approval in 1791, 2nd Amendment supporters argue that it is their constitutional right to bear arms (Timpf, 2017). However, now, more than two decades later, gun violence and terror reaches the news headlines

Read More
1673 Words | 7 Pages

The precise meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment has been a subject of frequent debate. Gun control advocates argue that when the newly founded country adopted the Second Amendment in 1791, each state maintained a militia composed of ordinary citizens who served as part-time soldiers’’ (‘’Gun Control’’). Even though states aren 't supposed to limit laws of the bill of rights in the past states had their own military groups so states should still have control over their own laws with guns like states did back then when the second amendment was

Read More
2019 Words | 9 Pages

The metamorphosis of gun laws is a topic rarely spoken of. Not only do you have to evaluate the history of the amendment that made this right to bear arms possible, but also you need to take a look at how it has evolved. The way guns are perceived is drastically different than it was years ago. Today, the average American will think of either two things when they think of guns: violence or safety. Which is it?

Read More
1080 Words | 5 Pages

As President Trump said during his campaign, when referring to various incidents of gun violence, “If you had guns on the other side, you wouldn’t have had the tragedy you had.” (DeFilippis, et al. , “5 Arguments against Gun Control and why they are all wrong”). A national survey conducted by John Lott in 2002 found that approximately 95 percent of the time that law abiding citizens used guns in a defensive manner, they only had to show the weapon to break off an attack. (Lott 3)

Read More
1991 Words | 8 Pages

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.” Gun rights has become the subject of intense political, social, and cultural battles for much of the last century. The pro-gun right side has asserted that the right to arms was absolute, and that any gun control laws infringed that right (Kopel, 2013). This right has been supported by the Supreme Court who has reinforced what has become the American consensus that the Second Amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, especially for self-defense, and that it is a fundamental individual

Read More
1108 Words | 5 Pages

One of the most controversial issues our nation faces today is gun control laws. This controversy has been created due to the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states the right of citizens to bear arms; “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” (Cornell Law School). Anti-gun control laws believe that the amendment guarantees the right to bear any kind of firearms. On the other hand, we have does that believe that more controls laws should be implemented since the 2nd amendment was for the right of States to have an armed militia during wartime. Both sides have strong point, however, the safety of our children comes first, and a firearm means death in the wrong hands.

Read More
707 Words | 3 Pages

Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people.

Read More
1386 Words | 6 Pages

According to the Second Amendment, “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 specifically states that “the right of the people to keep

Read More
606 Words | 3 Pages

29,618,300 violent crimes were committed between the years of 2007 and 2011. Only .79% protected themselves with a threat or use of a gun. Those that argue they should have a gun if a violent situation occurs, the statistics show that they will most likely not use the gun to protect themselves when under pressure. In 2010, there were only 230 “justifiable homicides” when a civilian used a firearm to kill a criminal. most do not use a gun to protect them at all, they are too much in shock to process it all, or for another reasons do not pull the firearm and make a treat or shoot at the

Read More
487 Words | 2 Pages

The first argument often rolled out by gun-grabbers is a textual one, claiming that the Second Amendment itself does not actually defend individuals’ right to keep and bear arms, but instead outlines the need for an armed “well-regulated militia.” According to progressives, that first phrase, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” indicates that the purpose of the amendment is to establish and maintain a regulated militia whose purpose is to defend the state. On this interpretation, the amendment does not secure the right of individuals to own weapons as individuals. There are two counters to this claim that demonstrate how facile it is. The first argument is simply a matter of understanding the grammar

Read More

More about Argumentative Essay On Gun Control

Related Topics

Open Document