ipl-logo

Gun-Bear Arms Pros And Cons

487 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Argumentative paragraph about the second amendment

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 …show more content…

As Justice Antonin Scalia pointed out in one of his most magisterial opinions: “Nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to ‘the people’ refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention ‘the people,’ the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.” If “the people” does not apply to all the individual citizens in the Second Amendment, then how can it do so for those other amendments? The meaning of the statement is clear, despite the obfuscation of progressive activism. The second counterargument relies on examining what the framers of the Constitution meant. Fortunately for supporters of the right to bear arms, and unfortunately for their opponents, many of the people who wrote the Constitution wrote elsewhere about its meaning. Many of the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Samuel Adams all explicitly endorsed individual ownership of arms. Even Alexander Hamilton, the founder most in favor of big government and a standing army, agreed that private citizens ought to be allowed to own

Show More
Related
673 Words | 3 Pages

" Most citizens United Sates have agreed and supported the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment has allowed people to defend themselves; yet, The Second Amendment should have been eliminated when the National Guard replaced the militias in 1903. (Ethical) The Second Amendment reads, "A well-regulated militia

Read More
450 Words | 2 Pages

To be a grass farmer means that one raises animals for meat, eggs, wool, etc.; however, the farmer views these animals simply as a single part of the food chain and sees grass as the “keystone species” in the whole process. The farmer Joel, in The Omnivore’s Dilemma” said he would even venture to call himself a sun farmer because grass is simply the way we capture solar energy. Grass is the key component of his farming because grass is the only source of food for the animals. A grass farmer believes in the advantages of grass fed meat and practices the strategy. In this kind of food chain grass is the base; then animals are added; the animals eat the grass; the animals produce (wool, eggs, meat, milk, etc); their wastes (fecal and slaughter) create a compost; which is used on the soil to grow grass that will continuously provide food for the animals and indirectly for humans.

Read More
1324 Words | 6 Pages

Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is

Read More
735 Words | 3 Pages

John Paul Stevens once said that "the Framer 's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee 'to keep and bear arms ' was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.” New York University School of Law shows that there is nothing about an individual’s right to bear arms the notes about the Second Amendment, when it was being created. The US Supreme Court declined to rule in favor of a persons right to bear arms four times between 1876 and 1939. From 1888 to 1959, all law articles on the second amendment stated that an individuals right to bear arms was not

Read More
108 Words | 1 Pages

Proposed by Representative Jim McGovern in 2011, the People’s Rights Amendment would ratify the Constitution’s meaning of the word people. The definition of the word person is a “natural human”, meaning not a group of people. This amendment would overturn the Citizens United decision, which allowed companies to have the same rights of free speech as people. McGovern declared that, “My amendment clarifies that corporations, whether they are for-profit or non-profit entities are not people with constitutional rights.” While many support this amendment, such as the Free Speech for the People group, others say that this amendment will allow the government to take advantage of companies and organizations.

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
95 Words | 1 Pages

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms. When the Second Amendment was written it was for the right to arm oneself as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, gun advocates proclaim that guns are for the right to self-defense. Some people try to participate and uphold the law. We have seen how guns in the hands of children can cause fatal accidents and people have committed mindless crimes leading to

Read More
799 Words | 4 Pages

Thesis 1: Charlton Heston is directly responsible for the large amount of gun ownership in America and is thus responsible for the large amount of gun related violence in America. If he stopped his rallying then gun violence would drop. Response: I disagree with this statement because Charlton Heston only promotes legal ownership of guns, and he does not support any form of violence and only encourages guns be used for self defence.

Read More
1092 Words | 5 Pages

Majority of the people who oppose gun control believe that it violates the Second Amendment. The Revere Journal says that “In terms of the substance of the Second Amendment, the notion of a militia has no practical meaning today relative to what that term meant in the late 18th century. We are long past the days when farmers left the fields to become de facto soldiers, or when posses were rounded up to chase outlaws, or when settlers were on their own in a hostile environment. Some pretend that a lifestyle that no longer exists still has meaning in the America of the 21st century.” The people that agree on needing strict gun control laws will find a stronger connection to this image compared to the people who oppose

Read More
1549 Words | 7 Pages

Proponents of more gun control laws believe that the Second Amendment was intended exclusively for militias, that gun restrictions have always existed, and that gun regulations would prevent criminals from possessing firearms. However, Opponents claim that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns, that guns are needed for self-defense, and that gun ownership helps to dissuade crime. Because of this obvious difference, proponents of stricter firearm regulation demand more laws to help prevent mass shooting, and want reform in the area of background checks. Meanwhile, opponents of gun laws often accuse the proponents of manipulating a mass tragedy in order to further strengthen their fight. Gun ownership has been a tradition within the united states since before the country itself was formed.

Read More
1297 Words | 6 Pages

In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause states “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century, as properly but not overly regulated (Roleff 69).

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

More about Gun-Bear Arms Pros And Cons

Related Topics

Open Document