More handpicked essays just for you.
Opposing viewpoints about gun control
Opposing viewpoints about gun control
What is the issue of gun control
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Although Leah Libresco is in favor of stopping people from dying of guns, she does not feel that standardized gun control is the right answer; therefore, the best way to deal with sensitive issues is by taking a personal approach to them. One gun control proposition is to ban silencers. Libresco does not feel that this is the right approach, and she uses a simile to prove her point; “An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer” (Libresco n.pag.). Comparing a silenced weapon to a jackhammer proves not only that silencers don’t truly silence a gun, but it also aids in Libresco’s attempt to prove that wide gun control is unwise. Jackhammers are cumbersome, unwieldy tools, just as mainstream gun control proposals are cumbersome and
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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. "(www.law.cornell.edu). This document was written in 1775 and ratified in 1787, and from that day the amendment still stands. So, in a constructivist point of view is there still a need for a well regulated militia in the United States or is the second amendment outdated and should be trimmed with the new fabric of America? My personal opinion on the matter is with the new age of America becoming more hostile every day, there will be always a need for a milita.
‘’Wake up!’’ there is someone in the house. You hurry up reaching for the gun and run as fast as you can to catch the intruder. The intruder sights the gun and within seconds; he leaves. What if there is a different scenario?
They discuss how different rules and regulations make it difficult for the Second Amendment to remain significant. They also address gun-neutral laws and whether the Second Amendment is applicable to events like assault or disturbing the peace. I found their stance interesting and useful for my paper. This
However, regardless of the original meaning intended by the authors of the Bill of Rights, it is indisputable that gun violence has made today’s American society a threat to itself. The different time ages: 18th Century America and that of 21st Century America is what should be considered prior to making further interpretations as a constitution should be amended accordingly with time in order to be effective. This issue needs to be understood as one that could be resolved up to a great extent with well-planned and strictly enforced laws, rules and regulations that would eventually reduce firearm fatalities while withstanding the conditions of the constitutional rights. ‘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 to the
Throughout history, especially recently, the question of whether gun control violates the 2nd Amendment has been a question which many people claim they know the answer to, but it may not be that transparent. I believe gun control is constitutional, and it deters crime and makes society safer, meaning I side with the pro-gun control ideas. Within the topic of gun control, there are many factors in which people must take into consideration when proposing an answer such as whether it deters crime, what the economic impact is, and what should be changed. NEW PARAGRAPH... Gun control can date way back, but what really made it controversial was the court case of Heller vs DC in 2008.
The average active shootings in the last seven years has jumped up more than triple of what is was the first year of 6.4 and it goes up 16.4 incidents per year. Just a few years ago, there have been over 300 mass shootings in the U.S in 2015. Recently, in criminal incidents dealing with police shooting many innocent people were falsely accused, which leads to mass debates on what needs to be done to prevent these innocent lives from getting scarred, and ultimately dying. Although there may have recently been multiple tragedies that dealt with guns, the moral of the story is to use these weapons correctly. Instead of banning guns, many people believe having the requirements to own a gun be greater in order to make sure unqualified individuals do not obtain these items.
Some people believe this only applies to military. In response Anthony Scalia said [6] , ”The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,’Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’” after the District of Columbia vs. Hellen ruling.
The issue over whether or not it is constitutional for the government to restrict the ability to buy or keep guns has been argued for many years. Debates often flare up because of a tragedy in which someone goes on a rampage with guns and kills or injures multiple people. People who are against gun control claim that the Second Amendment gives them the right to own firearms; however, the Constitution only gives collective rights to possess guns rather than individual. 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.
Would you rather walk around with a gun in your pocket or your family carry around a pocket of regret? Everyone has the liberty of the second amendment but it seems that some people are trying to take that away. There are pro-gun control activists that believe there should be more rules and regulations in place in order to own a gun to cut down on the number of shootings and violent crimes. The Second Amendment, and the regulations already in place, are more than enough to establish who is allowed to own a gun. Taking guns away from the civilians won’t fully eliminate mass shootings.
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.” The United States Constitution was written as a way for the American public not to be ruled, but to make sure that the government of the United States didn't get too much power. The most important amendment of the Constitution is the second one: the right to bear arms. This was written to provide protection against all enemies: those who invade the country, those who invade the property, and all that fall between. It is also there to help protect citizens from the tyranny of big government.
Unachievable Controversy abounds in the public and private arena today with gun control once again, at the forefront. Gun control is such a hot subject it is often the first topic discussed on the nightly news and serves as a heated discussion around the dinner table in many homes. Regardless of gun control laws, people who want to kill with guns can easily find guns to kill with. Constitutional protection, Ineffective policies, and political division clearly demonstrate that gun control is not working.
One of the most common arguments made while debating gun control is if the government places stricter restrictions on purchasing and using firearms, then civilians will eventually have the right to own guns taken away from them altogether. This is an example of the logical fallacy of slippery slope because it states that one first step (stricter regulations when buying firearms) will eventually lead to larger implications such as the government taking away the right for civilians to own guns completely. This is an argument that has been made by many groups advocating for looser gun control, such as the National Rifle Association, a massive organization with much political influence. The NRA’s website reads “In the face of gun-hating political
One of the strongest arguments those that are against gun control have is the 2nd Amendment, which 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.” Though it seems that it is specifically stated that an individual’s right to own guns is protected by this amendment, those for gun control interpret this from a different angle. They believe that the Constitutional Amendment was aimed at militias, not the common people, and therefore individuals do not have undeniable rights to gun ownership. Those that believe that gun control would be a crime are firm believers that the Founding Fathers understood the need for citizens to own guns to protect themselves against government intrusion. Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, “The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections
Background checks are not mandatory in the United States to purchase a lethal weapon, which is something that needs to change. According to Elisha Fieldstadt in the article, "Buying a Gun is So Easy 'It Doesn't Make Sense,'" "Only 13 states require a background check to be performed no matter how a gun is sold or what kind of gun it is according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence" (Fieldstadt). The amount of blindly sold unlicensed guns is mind-blowing considering the number of mass shootings committed by people with mental illnesses, the most recent being the Parkland High shooter in Florida. Guns have become such an ordinary thing to own, that it is somehow overlooked how deadly these weapons can be in the wrong hands. `Fieldstadt
