The Second Amendment was designed to guarantee the ability of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms for legal purposes (The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, 2010). Even with the current gun control laws and their supporters, there are associations opposing against any and all types of gun control. The opponents of gun control, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that the “right to bear arms” is their guarantee under the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. This association also argues the licensing restrictions
In the Landmark Case, District of Columbia V. Heller that took place in 2008, Dick Heller, whom is the petitioner of this case, was refused by the District of Columbia to register a handgun he wished to keep in his home. Heller filed a lawsuit in Federal District Court against the District of Columbia on the violations of rights of the Second Amendment. Heller’s argument stated that the Second Amendment provided an individual the right to keep and bear arms for a wide range of purposes beyond militia services. He claimed the right to possess a “functional firearm” that is accessible to be used when necessary for self-defense at home. The District of Columbia argued back that the Second Amendment only protects firearm rights that are closely tied to the service in a well-regulated state militia.
The federal government has awarded grants to police departments in excess of $34 billion dollars since 2011 to purchase military equipment. The author believes that this military appearance of the police is pushing the citizens away from being able to trust in the police to protect them during events such as the one in Ferguson, Missouri. While I can see the author’s point of view on this, I can’t help but to disagree. I believe that it shouldn’t matter how the police are dressed or what kind of weapons they are carrying. Obeying the law all boils down to one thing.
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson, said the Second Amendment grants people a right that “is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.” The idea is that if we can restrict who can have guns and what they can be used for, then there will be less violence and gun related deaths. However, this is difficult to enforce because there are so many guns already out in the public. “There are close to 300 million privately owned firearms in the U.S. Even if congress passed a law banning the sale of firearms tomorrow- which violates the Second Amendment- it would be decades before the supply of guns significantly, especially considering that many guns are operational 100 years or more after they’re manufactured.” Criminals can easily get the guns from friends, or illegally from ones that are currently privately owned or they can get them from other countries. In conclusion, I am currently against gun control because I want to make sure that innocent citizens can have access to guns and be able to protect themselves against criminals when they need to.
They asked the court to declare Chicago law banning handguns unconstitutional. Chicago’s law does not expressly prohibit handgun ownership, but Justice Alito argued that it effectively does so. The law requires all owners of firearms to apply for a permit. Most handguns are excluded from the list of approvable firearms, therefore making it nearly impossible for any resident to own a handgun. Both the petitioners were ruled against by the United States District Court Judge and the United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Strict vs. Loose Interpretation of the Constitution Many argue what were the intentions of the Founding Fathers when creating the U.S Constitution. "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases," quoted Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson believed in a strict view of the constitution while he was an advisor.
In the republic of California, some would say we have some of the worst laws and restrictions in the country. Gun control on American citizens has been attempted ever since the Bill of Rights’ 2nd amendment said, “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.” This sentence and its meaning have been debated by lawmakers and firearm-bearing citizens to this day, and we can not agree on what our founding fathers intended the amendment to mean. In my mind I see it only one way, the second amendment gives the people the right to own and keep any firearm they feel they should have. One point argued about the second amendment is at the end of the quote, it claims that our right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” This phrase, however, is debated to whether they are talking about the right to simply own a firearm, or to place any limitations on firearms capabilities. The word infringed means to inflict upon a right or privilege.
Gun Control One of the hot issues during election season is the Second Amendment, which is the right to bear arms. Lawmakers, citizens, and gun lobbyists have been arguing over gun control for over a century. Just in the past two years this issue has made it to the nation’s highest court. In the ruled in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a gun for traditionally lawful purposes like personal defense inside a home. The Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms applies to the to the local and state level.
Lenient Gun Control Gun control laws in the US are lenient. Gun could be a safe protection or it could be a dangerous destroyer. For me, gun should refer to be a security to us. In our world, there are more than 190 countries; within 48 states citizens can have guns legally, and 43 of them can buy guns without any licenses or enrollments. In addition, we do have a grave problem which has been controverted for a long time that is gun control ordinance in the social life.
I am one that is for stricter gun laws in America, as it is scary to think of future generations where gun ownership is just as common as owning a car. On the Whitehouse website, the first thing that popped up when researching about gun laws and violence with weapons was, “Now is the time to do something about gun violence.” Now to me, this sounds like congress has every intention to do “something” about guns and gun violence, but what? After the Sandy Hook shooting, in Barack Obama’s speech he mentioned that it was an “obligation” for America to do something to prevent events like this from occurring again. The site also says, “Most gun owners are responsible and law abiding.” The key word here is “most”. What about the others who are not responsible and law abiding?