Nra National Rifle Association Summary

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been at the forefront championing this right to the detriment of most people in society. The NRA has managed to conduct lobbying in the US Congress that has led to passing of legislation that strengthens gun owners’ rights, but this goes contrary to the gun violence statistics; 21 thousand people commit suicide annually, most gun crimes are carried out using the legal weapons bought by licensed owners (Graham,

The debate over gun control has been raging through the American political systems for years. On one side, there is the National Rifle Association (NRA) and 2nd Amendment-citing citizens who use their firearms for hunting and self-defense. On the other, there is Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) and followers of the Brady Campaign who want to ban guns on the basis that they are dangerous. Both sides have strong arguments, anchored in historical precedent and statistical analysis. Anti-gun control lobbyists’ arguments include the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment, the definition of “militia” as any adult male, self-defense, the relative uselessness of permits and regulations, and court cases in favor of firearm possession. Pro-gun control activists

Guns are one of the most controversial and debated-upon topics in America today. In the Constitution, Americans are given “the right to bear arms,” and many Americans are proud of and believe strongly in that right. Though, that right has been constantly misused. Homicides by gun are at a higher rate in the United States than any other country in the world, mass shootings are at an all time high (many of which have occurred in the past two years alone), and terrorism has been at an all-time high. So, naturally, it is a topic that needs to be discussed. In the articles Change Your Gun Laws, America (1), author Fareed Zakaria provides the readers with some harrowing statistics on guns and insight over how the U.S. laws on guns need to be managed.

People who appreciate activities like shooting competitions and hunting, use firearms responsibly. This use contrasts with other uses, which often result in consequences that can be both intended and unintended. With past and present mass shootings, and acts of bloodshed perpetrated with the usage of weapons; has triggered a focus on gun control that once again has been brought into the spotlight. The purpose of the ongoing gun argument addresses the crimes that are committed with guns. This issue of gun control separated people into two groups: those who believe that carrying guns might prevent some crimes and fatalities, and those who don’t. There are individuals who believe absolutely the reverse: that more crime and deaths

The following critical analysis of the Essay, “The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms” by Lee Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, William Van Alstyne, is intended to highlight a few of the different short-comings and argumentative fallacies presented by even the most legally astute individuals who oppose forms of gun control. While the author does present a multi-facet and well-orchestrated presentation of fact and principle, there are two essential claims being asserted on his part. The author’s intent is to demonstrate the importance of gun right protection and to justify the NRA’s practices in the name of doing so. In my dissection of the essay, I intend to demonstrate the argumentative fallacies and examine the ways in which the NRA is generally harmful to the progression of gun control reform, and therefore public safety in the United

Stricter laws against guns should definitely be initiated in the United States. It is too easy for just anyone to get their hands on guns, especially teenagers. The events that have happened in years past is proof that if gun laws get more lenient then more people will get killed in tragic situations such as the ones I’ll discuss in this essay. America should learn from its past, and not only think of new laws to prevent these types of events from happening, but should also begin to enforce the laws that are already in place.

The article “Gun Control Laws: Should the United States adopt stronger gun control laws?” focuses on the debate on passing stricter gun control laws. For example, supporters believe that gun control laws will decrease mass shootings and gun violence. Additionally, adopting these laws does not violate the Second Amendment, and as a result it does not limit the government from the use of fire arms when it is necessary. However, opponents argue that the gun control laws will not stop gun violence. The problem is the people holding the gun and not the gun itself. Furthermore, opponents gathered that stronger gun control laws do violate the Second Amendment. The author illustrates the debate on whether the United States should or should not adopt stronger gun control laws.

Gun violence has become an increasingly apparent and critical issue in American society. The most prominent and dramatic examples of gun violence are the shootings that have been occurring recently. In October of twenty-seventeen, a gunman opened fire on a concert in Las Vegas killing fifty-nine and injuring over five hundred in what would be the largest mass shooting in American history. These numbers are astounding but do not change the fact that stricter gun control will not solve the problem. While tragic, these instances they offer insight into what perpetuates gun violence. However, people often use these tragedies to gain political favor and call for more action for gun control, but these instances only reveal that guns are not the source of the problem. According to USA Today journalist John Munn, these type of instances are an example of why more gun control is a necessity. In his article, “Readers sound off: We need to do more on gun control”, Munn wrote, “[Guns are] being used against the general public for the express purpose of mass murder. They’re not hunting tools. They’re not used to protect the innocent.

Second Amendment rights must be the most controversial section of the Constitution, it most definitely has to be the most challenged. Lawsuits have been brought up against the Second Amendment for many years, challenging whether or not it should still be a part of the Constitution, and the meaning behind the verbiage used. The anti-gun crowd has attempted multiple times to prove the Second Amendment should apply only to a militia and that the average citizen has no right to own a firearm. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the largest lobbyist group for pro-gun rights and one of the most powerful interest groups in politics today. They have successfully supported the defense of the peoples’ right to own firearms for many years. After many years of failing to accomplish their agenda, the anti-gun crowd has a new tactic: instead of facing the multimillion members of the NRA (Statistic Brain Research Institute, 2014) they are now going after the gun manufacturers and dealers. They cannot stop the sale of guns therefore they want to eliminate the source. This paper will identify the historical foundation of the Second Amendment, describe the National Rifle Association’s involvement, and site the legal precedence and challenges.

Their opinion contradicts the opinion of some in saying that the right to have a weapon makes a society free.

In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of

The debate over stricter gun laws has been ongoing in the United States for quite some time now. Individuals who oppose stricter gun control laws argue that the second amendment to the constitution of the United States constitute part of the bill of rights that protect the right of American citizens to bear arms, and any attempt to set up laws for gun control will be a direct violation of this (Hofstadter 10). They argue that the primary purpose of the amendment was to ensure that American Citizens had the capability to protect themselves against criminal activities and defend the country against external aggression. From a personal perspective, the recent surge in instances of gun violence in the United States of America indicates that stricter gun control laws are necessary for the safety of the American citizenry. Thus, this paper is going to focus on highlighting the benefits of more stringent gun control laws and why members of the public should support it.

Gun control is an extremely controversial issue in the United States, and the debates around this topic has started many decades ago. According to the article “Gun Rights vs. Gun control” by Brianna Gurciullo, these debates are fueled by the people who defend the gun rights and the people who advocate in favor of gun control. It has been difficult to prove that gun ownership is directly related to an increase in violence due to the fact that researches tend to disagree on the impact of gun ownership in the American society. These debates tend to be brought to the spotlight whenever there is a mass shooting in the United States, which according to Abbey Oldham, who is a reporter from the PBS News Hour, happens quite frequently. However, organizations, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), defend that the laws for gun control violate the Second Amendment of the constitution, which states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” stated Gurciullo. Due to the distinct interpretations of the constitution and the difficulty to agree on the best approach to tackle the issue, this controversy seem to be almost unsolvable.

The National Rifle Association (“NRA”) has a strong influence on gun owners, the political process, and as such, gun legislation. Since its founding in 1871, the NRA was traditionally pro gun control and even helped write gun safety laws. Their anti-gun control stance is a fairly recent development. Only since 1977, when a libertarian equating guns with freedom became head of the NRA did this change. In the 1920s and 30s, the NRA lobbied for laws that the current day NRA described as tyrannical. Up until the 1970s, the focus of the organization was firearms safety education, marksmanship training, and shooting for recreation. The current focus is on fighting for the constitutional right to own and use guns as provided in the 2nd Amendment. v The NRA also

In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, to hunt for food and to engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control takes on a proportion of extreme magnitude. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution.