ipl-logo

Right To Bear Arms Argumentative Essay

743 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Does gun control really work argumentative essay

Did you know that in 2016, 33,000 people in the US died from firearms, nearly 1 in 3 of which are suicides? Gun legislation has been a controversial topic since the second amendment was added to the constitution in 1791. Ever since, organizations like the National Rifle Association (NRA) have gotten into arguments with the citizens of the US and the government involving laws regarding the people’s rights to own and bear firearms. Although gun advocates say that firearms are necessary for self-defense, these weapons have done more harm than good. The US should enforce stricter national gun laws because firearms are not effective for self-defense, the Founding Fathers of the constitution had different things in mind, and because it would decrease …show more content…

James Madison drafted the second amendment, which was added to the constitution in 1791. It 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.” Over time, people have taken “right of the people to keep and bear arms” as individuals’ rights to own guns, and the Supreme Court ruled it official in 2008 (Document A). However, from the context of the rest of the amendment, it was to allow states (not individuals) to form militias to protect themselves. What the Founding Fathers wanted was for the citizens to make up states’ militaries in an emergency. In current times, that would mean citizens would be allowed to own military weapons like automatic machine guns and even drones. However, in 1791, the military used muskets, and there were no machine guns or any other automatic weapons. It may seem logical that citizens today would only be allowed to own muskets, which is what people owned in 1791. This is far from practical though, as muskets are much harder to find. If the constitution’s authors had in mind that citizens should own firearms solely for the purpose of forming militias, then that’s how it should be

Show More
Related
983 Words | 4 Pages

To Justice Scalia, this means that the individual has “the right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (Scalia, 4). The question at stake, however, is not whether the individual or collective is protected but the scope of the right in question. In other words, while it is clear that the amendment protects the right to use guns for military services but does not protect its use for crimes, what rights does it encompass in between those extremities, such as the right to carry a weapon for personal self-defense? A more natural reading of the amendment, where the prefactory clause is read chronologically before the operative clause, shows the text’s intent to solely protect the rights of militia. This is proven, as pointed out in the dissent, by the fact that states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania explicitly articulated in their Declaration of Rights at the time the separate right of individuals to bear arms for self-defense.

Read More
799 Words | 4 Pages

Many citizens believe that the Constitution is outdated and needs to be rewritten to better fit the customs of today. However, others believe that the Constitution was written to be able to fit the customs of any person that call themself american. This was one factor that the founding fathers had in mind when creating the Constitution along with each amendment afterward. There is no need for an update, because the muskets of that time are the AR-15s of today. Nothing has changed except for advances in technology along with increasing population.

Read More
489 Words | 2 Pages

Government lawyers begged to differ claiming that the 2nd amendment right did not imply to the individual right it was a “collective” right. That weapons such as rifles are used as common (war) defense not to be used as self defense so therefore the rights are meant to be used for militaristic power. However the supreme court overturned the lower court's ruling and claimed that the act was actually constitutional. However the court agreed that the National Firearms Act was put in place to keep states from pre forming militias not for the meaning of taking it away from personal possession therefore the act could be misunderstood under militia services. Then again the court also agrees that even a militia is made of a group of free men that would provide their own weapon stating they were unsure of militaristic

Read More
558 Words | 3 Pages

The right to bear arms gave us the power to bear arms to protect our constitution. Many civilizations like the British did not allow their civilians to bear arms giving them absolute power. The writers of the constitution wanted the citizens to be able to protect their rights. It also states that we have the right to a Militia, which to date is our national guard. When you get into politics and maybe ask someone about the second amendment two things will pop up, the individual right, or the right to a militia.

Read More
709 Words | 3 Pages

The NRA heavily pushes for the United States citizens to use the second amendment to keep the government from becoming too corrupt or powerful. The second 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”(Madison). The right to bear arms was created so citizens could not be bullied by a dictator, could start another revolution, and protect themselves if need be. In an article titled “How Mass Shootings Spark the Gun Control Debate” an unknown author writes “The Second Amendment

Read More
1222 Words | 5 Pages

It is only for the people who are well trained, and a part of regulating the militia. This part of the amendment creates debates. Available guns in public have some effects. It can be helpful for the personal security and on the other side, it can be violence. Gun violation is increasing day by day.

Read More
561 Words | 3 Pages

The second amendment from the Constitution gives the right of the people to bear arms and protect themselves. Although guns were very different back then, it doesn’t change the fact that the people should be able to protect themselves with weapons. Government shouldn’t be able to take away our freedoms, and the right to bear arms is one of those freedoms we have. The reason why we are a free country is because the colonies in the Revolutionary took up arms and revolted against their tyrannical King. Taking our second amendment would leave us defenceless and a government with power can take advantage of this and why we can’t revise the

Read More
792 Words | 4 Pages

The Constitution was written in 1787 when the militia was still important and often used, people hunted for food and a living, and Native Americans were a threat. We now have an organized military, and a militia is no longer “necessary to the security of a free

Read More
1289 Words | 6 Pages

It is clear that at the time the Amendments words were written no one assumed that all people were actually equal and the generalized people were referenced as a collective for the good of the people who ran the show. Yet those who advocate for free individual gun ownership point to the language of the Amendment and clearly define “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” portion to mean just that; no infringement of their individual right to own, use and carry arms. Though many feel that this interpretation has given rise to the rights of the many to a collective sense of well-being and safety the quintessential; “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” (Declaration of Independence (US 1776) being subjugated to the rights of the few.

Read More
412 Words | 2 Pages

Next, some people say that they feel safe and secure when they have the right to bear arms as it can protect them from bad guys. However, with guns, people usually die. Moreover, without proper training it is also not safe to the users. This is the modern world, if someone kills someone or hurts someone in your family or you, does not give you the right to use deadly weapons to defend yourself. There are services which are there to protect people.

Read More
685 Words | 3 Pages

" Some reasons why this amendment was made are that the framers wanted adults to know how to use a weapon and to be ready to use a weapon if they were attacked. During this time, the British troops were still attempting to overtake the new land, one of the ways they did this was by attempting to take the people’s guns. There was still reason to believe that British would still attack the new country and the United States did not have a real army, so any military action needed to be responded to by

Read More
802 Words | 4 Pages

When the government, The British, came into our territory back during the Revolutionary War many citizens were armed ready to defend themselves. Though when the British came the British army started to take away the people's guns! This created the opportunity for the British army to take control over the citizens. People may also say that our founding fathers created this amendment back when people had muskets. This is not the reason why we created the amendment because if we still used muskets that would create an unbalanced power between the government and the people.

Read More
1297 Words | 6 Pages

The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of the constitution. 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” (US Const. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports.

Read More
2700 Words | 11 Pages

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).

Read More
637 Words | 3 Pages

Furthermore, it is important to consider how times have changed and how guns are being used today. Guns are more often used in violent circumstances than in self-defense and are correlated with murder and crime. As shown previously, the US suffers higher gun homicide rates than any other first world country. Although guns were needed during the Revolution for self-defense against abusive soldiers, there rarely are situations today where guns are required for self-defense. Therefore, Congress must legislate more laws to restrict ownership of firearms to prevent

Read More

More about Right To Bear Arms Argumentative Essay

Open Document