The Second Amendment - The Right To Bear Arms Essay

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

The second amendment, a now widely talked about topic. With recent issues in society, this amendment has become controversial. This amendment states “A well regulated militia, be necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment was ratified in 1791 and is in the original bill of rights. In colonial America, before its ratification, the right to bear arms was considered a necessary due to their believed nature right to protect themselves and their property. However, there was a need to declare gun ownership as a specific right. This amendment have proven itself important to American from the beginning. At first, it prevented the new federal government from

The second amendment of the United States 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” (Constitution). This has started a huge debate on whether or not this should be true. On one hand people believe that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" make an individual right in constitution. Under this theory the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. Gun control is considered unconstitutional by many American citizens, as it should be. Gun control is laws or

The founding fathers like Alexander Hamilton are the ones who wrote the second amendment. So why did they write it? What were they worried about? The main objective of the Second Amendment was to protect the people from tyranny. The right to have a gun allows the people of the United States to fight an oppressive government just like the French Revolution against King Louis XVI in 1789–1799. Fighting an oppressive government through individuals or a militia. Some people agree that a militia should be able to have guns, but this wouldn’t be a group of citizens. It would be an organization like the National Guard, but the idea of the militia would be to fight an armed guard like the National Guard. As stated by the Harvard Journal of

Death, violence, individual rights, crime, and cost are many words that arise when researching the controversial topic of gun control. This issue revolves around the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and 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.” Is there a black and white answer or is there a need to find a middle ground? The foundational right must be preserved for an individual to own a gun. However, basic safety measures need to be in place for added protection and security of all Americans. To explore why this balance is the best option, it is necessary to look further into the

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." This amendment has been understood amongst the American people, as simply “the right to bear arms”. The creation of the United States constitution was left in the hands of young men whom had served in the Continental Army prior to the draft of the historical document. Having witnessed the violence of the Revolution, these Federalists had the fear of suffering from a weak centralized government. “Anti-federalists”, members that opposed the Constitution, feared that this new government could build one centralized professional army, disarming the 13 state militias.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution gave United States citizens the right to bear arms. Although, the Second Amendment stated: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. However, the framers could not foresee the type of violence we have in our cities today. Innocent citizens have and are being brutally killed due to this amendment. Stricter gun control laws must be enacted to receive these types of weapons.

In the book Guns, Gun Control, and Elections: The Politics and Policy of Firearms, Wilson discusses the complex issue of gun control and the many debates and controversies regarding the issue. Many people throughout the United States feel it is the right as a citizen in the United States to own a weapon, and the government should have no say in the matter. These people believe this because of the part of the Second Amendment that states, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” People who are strong advocates against gun control use this part of the Second Amendment to drive their point across. Advocates against gun control believe that preserving the freedom of a state through a militia is not the only way

Hence, the Second Amendment was meant to protect us from rebellions we had no way of defending ourselves. It was left up to the states to regulate gun laws, this is part of Tenth Amendment which states The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor

Lately, as a nation, it seems more than a month can’t go by without hearing an incident on national news concerning a shooting. Every shooting that occurs is gaining the national media spotlight. This is prompting leaders and politicians around the country to call for further gun control to answer this current epidemic. Creating new gun laws are not the answer. This only creates extra problems with law-abiding citizens obtaining a firearm and infringing on their second amendment right of the United States Constitution, which 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.” The second amendment may be viewed from different points or have various interpretations; this amendment gives law-abiding citizens of this country the right to own a firearm and regardless of what criminal acts others commit, restricting or banning firearms shouldn’t be the first item that gets attacked when tackling this issue.

Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." For this reason, the gun lobby does not fight for its perceived constitutional right to keep and bear arms before the Supreme Court, but in Congress. Interestingly, even interpreting an individual right in the 2nd Amendment presents the gun lobby with some thorny problems, like the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons.

The term “gun control” deals with the regulation of the selling, purchasing, and using of firearms in America. The availability of firearms to the public has been causing serious debates around the country because of the diversity in the people’s cultures, judgment, and religions. Many people thought the provision set by the Second Amendment when it was ratified can perfectly be applied in the society today. However, the understanding of people about the Second Amendment and how they interpret it change over time. They cannot agree with each other about the meaning of the historical evidence (Karlan, 2013). Research and polls found that people in the rural areas tend to support the right of gun owners while those in urban areas encourage gun control. Due

The gun control debate has dominated US history, and it has been a controversial issue in itself considering that the right to bear and keep arms is one among the few bitterly divisive issues of American constitutional law. The Second Amendment is significant in this debate, providing the basis upon which those supporting robust gun regulation as fundamental, collective, and civic right and in particular its preamble concreting the usefulness of a well-regulated militia. Emphasis has been placed by gun rights advocates, comparing this to press freedom in enabling citizens to possess "firearms for self-protection, hunting, or to wage revolution against the government itself" in

The gun debate in the United States widely revolves around the intended interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those who support gun rights claim that the founding fathers developed and subsequently ratified the Second Amendment to guarantee the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Those who want more stringent gun laws feel that the founding fathers directed this Amendment solely to the formation of militias and are thus, outdated.

One of the biggest debates concerning gun control is what the Constitution has to say about it. The second amendment of the United States Constitution clearly states that citizens have the right to bear arms. This means