Guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution, as interpreted by our Courts, is a Citizen’s Right to Bear Arms. According to the National Rifle Association and many other proponents of the Second Amendment, this argument is incontrovertible and no longer up for debate, and in the current political climate, I concede this point; however, I am not here to discuss the merits of a Citizen’s Right to Bear Arms, but rather a similar and much more controversial topic: The Right to Arm Bears! As a representative of the newly formed Squirrel Lobby, we state categorically and for the record, this idea is completely nuts! Like a logical philosopher, or any lobbyist worth their extravagant lobbying fee, let’s start by defining terms. A gun is a tool, a technological device that exists to solve certain problems.
The Gun Lobby and the National Rifle Association mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment not only guarantees an individual’s right to own firearms, but also limits the making and enforcement of any laws limiting the use of and ownership of guns. There is no constitutional law that prevents the government from limiting personal access to firearms through legal means. The argument over the right to bear arms should not be about whether the right belongs to the people; but rather, it should address the purpose and scope of that right. According to Dennis Henigan (2005), “Arms-bearing in the well-regulated militia was a duty owed to the government, not a personal right to be exercised against the government,” (D 21). The right to keep and bear arms is basically different from the other guarantees in the Bill of Rights.
Bear Firearms-Second Amendment The second amendment of us constitution gives the rights to bear arms. It says that citizens have rights to have a gun for their security. The amendment states that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" that means citizens have right to have a gun. The amendment also says in a statement, “A well-regulated Militia”, that means arms is not for everybody.
Chapter 6 Article 2: Congress vs. the States on Guns Chapter six of the textbook, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System by J. Scott Harr, Karen M. Hess, Christine Orthmann, and Jonathon Kingsbury, goes into extensive detail on the seconded amendment of the United States Constitution. To briefly sum up, the seconded 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" (Harr, Hess, Orthmann, & Kingsbury, 2015, p. 167). Pursuing this further, there has been a considerable amount of debate throughout the years on what ‘the right to bear Arms’ really implies for American citizens today. Due to the confusion, many states have had to appear in
Gun Control: And The Arguments On The Subject Have you ever shot a gun if so you have probably felt adrenaline. So when most hunters think of guns they think of fun and their lives would be changed. Gun control has been a battle back and forth between different views for years around the world. In this subject for every argument there is a counterargument. But since the gun control we have now is cutting down on shootings but not limiting hunters or anybody who uses firearms legally most people think that we should keep the same laws.
The right to bear arms for self defense is protected on all states as well as the U.S. Constitution. It is argued that violent crime lessens when people legally carry guns. This halts the black market constant flow of revenue whenever gun bans are enacted. Right to carry laws have been on the rise since the 1990’s.
In counter to what is said for pro gun control in the United States one also has to see the view of people who disagree with it. The other side of the argument believes that possessing a gun can give someone the ability to help or save themselves as well as others, that all gun control laws go against what is said in the Second Amendment, and claims are made such as, “why not let people own grenades and nukes then?” Everyone no matter where on earth has the common right to defend and help not only themselves but others as well. Simple defense and defense with a gun is a completely different story and the amount of power that comes with a gun is overwhelming. Even though it is seen that guns are simple devices used for protection in worst case scenarios, no one should have the right to decide when someone is to live or to
In recent years, the debate over whether citizens should carry guns has become increasingly polarized. On one hand, supporters of the Second Amendment argue that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right that is necessary for self-defense and to protect against tyranny. Those who support people's freedom to carry firearms say it is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. They feel that carrying weapons can give citizens a tool for self-defense and dissuade criminals from committing crimes. They also claim that gun ownership can help avoid government tyranny and guarantee people's freedom and rights are protected.
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
Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. Many citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would reduce the threat of crime. People have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting and recreational activity. With the recent events involving firearms and mass shootings, people are skeptical whether to increase or decrease gun laws. Americans have a constitutional right to own handguns and stricter laws and licensing will not effectively save lives.
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.
For advocates of the second amendment, the right to bear arms applies to all Americans for self-protection against dangerous criminals. Criminals will always have access to weapons, therefore citizens need self-protection using firearms. John Lott, in “More Guns, Less Crime,” explains that crime fell by 10 percent in Texas in the year after a law had passed letting citizens carry weapons ( Martin 10). This evidence shows that if more citizens were armed for example, the citizens in Texas, less crime would occur in America. Although those in favor of the second amendment believe that arms are used in self-protection, they also believe it is an individual right and oppose strict gun control laws as
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
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.
What about the 2nd amendment and the constitutional right to bear arms? Debates on gun control are often frayed with heavy emotions and personal opinions. Not for lack of good reasoning, especially when statistics show that 40 percent of Americans know someone who was either fatally shot or committed suicide with a firearm (The Trace, 2017). However, before you form an opinion on statistics alone, try using simple logic and common sense. Imagine you’re out walking through the shopping mall or even perhaps the local neighborhood Walmart
