Gun-Bear Arms Debate

Should an american who has the right credentials have the right to bear arms? Should the be able to have a concealed weapon and or be able to open carry a rifle or other firearm? The answer is yes to both of these questions the average american who can take and pass a background check given by the government. The right to carry a firearm whether it is open carry or concealed carry has been in effect ever since the signing of the declaration of independence in 1776. This has been a great asset to americans, one the second amendment gives americans a sense of security, it also helps people with self defence and also the protection of their family.

Hello Family, Yesterday I went to a training in regards to the new open carry gun law. It is a very disturbing and dangerous law. The law basically states that a license person may carry a gun openly in public. There are some exceptions to this law. The person must have the gun in a holster when carried on his body.

Ryan Clark Adeline Mitchell English 125 22 July 2015 An Annotated Bibliography Wright, Stephen E. "Gun Control Laws Will Not Save Lives." Guns and Crime. Ed. Christine Watkins.

The topic of concealed carry is still controversial 200 years later. Guns rights activists would make steps against gun laws only to be swallowed up by the anti gun administration. The NRA is certainly not perfect and has had its own share of personal controversies. Despite few gun accidents and suicides gun control is a burden on society. A citizen

“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 was created to make sure that state militias were able to continue to be armed for defense and also make sure that individuals that were citizens had a right to own guns. When the first ten amendments(the bill of rights) were fabricated, the American people were convinced that we needed militias to protect our free state. Today our government is very strong with our defense and military and we no longer depend on our militias.

The right to have a concealed weapon at work or the right to bear arms for protection no matter where you are is a sensitive and complex situation. This has been the subject of debate between Congress, the National Rifle Associate (NRA), mothers, schools, private business and the list continues to grow. This issue comes on the backs of multiple shootings at schools, business and in lives of people in general. The Second Amendment states the right for people to keep and bear arms.

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.” Gun rights has become the subject of intense political, social, and cultural battles for much of the last century. The pro-gun right side has asserted that the right to arms was absolute, and that any gun control laws infringed that right (Kopel, 2013). This right has been supported by the Supreme Court who has reinforced what has become the American consensus that the Second Amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, especially for self-defense, and that it is a fundamental individual

On the issue of gun control, I had always thought along the lines of opposing or supporting the issue but had never thought that there could be another argument different from these two main ones that could be discussed. It was therefore quite refreshing to look at the issue from Novak’s point of view. The fact that he provided evidence to support his claim that law enforcement has worked before in reducing gun violence cases made his article all the more interesting and believable. He shows that the debate on gun control may just have been pointless all this time as the issue that should be discussed is really not whether people should have guns or not but rather how to enforce the law to ensure that perpetrators of gun violence are

Strict regulations and limitations have been pursued already and clearly do not suffice. Statics brought to attention by gun control opponents, show that gun control laws have done little to reduce crime rates. Several restrictions have been made on certain guns, considered as overly dangerous, though in the hands of an unstable criminal even a legal hunting gun can be deadly. Countless restrictions have been made, however people have still found ways around them. If people are unstable and determined enough, they will find a gun, regardless of the restrictions or regulations.

Alexis Clarke Professor Frank English 110 29 October 2015 Gun Control Will Not Eliminate Crime The big issue of gun control in the United States, is that many people believe that it takes away the 2nd Amendment rights, which is the right to bear arms. Citizens of the United States are promised the the right to bear arms in the Constitution, and by applying gun control laws takes away that same right. Crime is high enough in cities with very few laws pertaining to gun control, but taking guns away from people who are registered with license will not solve the problem either. Placing more limitations on gun owners, particularly responsible gun owners, will not reduce gun violence.

The last 18 years have been experienced by too many shootings. We must take action to help stop gun violence. In furtherance of reducing gun violence, we must handle the problem of easy access to guns and address men's mental health. One way to reduce gun violence is to regulate the easy access to guns. In the article," How to Reduce Shootings", by Nicolas Kristoff in The New York Times Kristoff claims how automobiles could kill as many people as guns but they don't because we regulate them and limit easy access to automobiles.

There is an estimation that about half of the households in the United States owns at least one gun. As such many people can have access to guns, including children and other family members. Many school based attacks involve young people carrying guns owned by their parents and going on a rage through schools and other places. Similarly, the ease of acquiring guns has led to vulnerable deaths of people across the country. Moreover, this leads obsessed people to escape their frustrations on minorities by murdering and threatening them.

This paper also provides an interesting solution to gun violence; instead of already proven ineffective gun control laws, these authors suggest looking at why these laws are ineffective. Planty, Michael, and Jennifer

Instead of banning or limiting guns, the evidence will show that removing the current restrictions and targeting individuals instead of guns will be a more effective process. The topic of gun control has two polarized opinions. One such opinion targets the individuals responsible for the crime, instead of just the weapons. John Moorhouse and Brent Wanner tackle the issue of gun control in their article “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control”, which was published in 2006 in the twenty-sixth volume of the Cato Journal. These researchers looked at the effects gun control laws had on violent crime and gun violence in the individual states.

The first argument often rolled out by gun-grabbers is a textual one, claiming that the Second Amendment itself does not actually defend individuals’ right to keep and bear arms, but instead outlines the need for an armed “well-regulated militia.” According to progressives, that first phrase, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” indicates that the purpose of the amendment is to establish and maintain a regulated militia whose purpose is to defend the state. On this interpretation, the amendment does not secure the right of individuals to own weapons as individuals. There are two counters to this claim that demonstrate how facile it is. The first argument is simply a matter of understanding the grammar