Right To Bear Arms Argumentative Essay

The second amendment was adopted to protect the right of constituents to serve in the militia for the ultimate purpose of protecting State’s share of sovereignty with the Federal government. Militias, while no longer relevant, can be translated into our modern day military system. The amendment in no way mentions the

Constitution, the Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, has been the most publicly contentious of late. With the spate of mass shooting tragedies that made headlines in the past year, the meaning and intentions of the Second Amendment is once again being openly debated. As Voice of America reports, the framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure the protected basic rights, including the right to bear arms, that they enjoyed as Englishmen. In fact, English laws even required that men practice using their firearms should they ever be called to defend the nation

The Second Amendment 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. Amend. II, sec. 8).

Government lawyers begged to differ claiming that the 2nd amendment right did not imply to the individual right it was a “collective” right. That weapons such as rifles are used as common (war) defense not to be used as self defense so therefore the rights are meant to be used for militaristic power. However the supreme court overturned the lower court's ruling and claimed that the act was actually constitutional. However the court agreed that the National Firearms Act was put in place to keep states from pre forming militias not for the meaning of taking it away from personal possession therefore the act could be misunderstood under militia services. Then again the court also agrees that even a militia is made of a group of free men that would provide their own weapon stating they were unsure of militaristic

The most noted writer of the Constitution is Thomas Jefferson. If Jefferson states that forbidding the ownership of arms encourages homicides opposed to preventing them, that leaves little up for interpretation. Through the exploitation of several mass shootings, former President Obama made these mass shootings out to be caused solely by guns, not by the mentally unstable individual who committed the horrendous acts. Thus making a call for more gun control in order to “control” and “prevent” these mass shootings (Kopel

The right to bear arms gave us the power to bear arms to protect our constitution. Many civilizations like the British did not allow their civilians to bear arms giving them absolute power. The writers of the constitution wanted the citizens to be able to protect their rights. It also states that we have the right to a Militia, which to date is our national guard. When you get into politics and maybe ask someone about the second amendment two things will pop up, the individual right, or the right to a militia.

Debates about the Second Amendment have focused on its parameter to protect private rights of individual people to possess firearms, and the ability to be apart of militia organizations. The world has seen a drastic change since the implementation of the amendment in 1791. Civilian ran militias are almost obsolete, and most militias are now ran and regulated by state governments. The military of the United states has also seen a dramatic increase, and is undoubtedly more powerful. For the most part, civilians are no longer expected or desire to be apart of a militia, however firearms are still essential for self defence, hunting, and

The NRA heavily pushes for the United States citizens to use the second amendment to keep the government from becoming too corrupt or powerful. The second amendment states that “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”(Madison). The right to bear arms was created so citizens could not be bullied by a dictator, could start another revolution, and protect themselves if need be. In an article titled “How Mass Shootings Spark the Gun Control Debate” an unknown author writes “The Second Amendment

This means that citizens have the right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Although this amendment may seem straightforward, it has been subjected to lots of ongoing debate. Those who oppose gun control laws point out that, at the time the Second Amendment was written, militias were not groups of professional soldiers, but were made up of the common citizenry. On the other hand, people who favor gun control interpret the amendment as referring to armed forces such as the Air Force or the

However, they forget when the Constitution was written and that there is a first half. The full second amendment 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.” The key word here: Militia. A militia is, according to my American history notes, “a group of civilians trained to fight in case of an emergency.” They brought their own muskets to battle.

When the government, The British, came into our territory back during the Revolutionary War many citizens were armed ready to defend themselves. Though when the British came the British army started to take away the people's guns! This created the opportunity for the British army to take control over the citizens. People may also say that our founding fathers created this amendment back when people had muskets. This is not the reason why we created the amendment because if we still used muskets that would create an unbalanced power between the government and the people.

The right to bear arms has been a controversial issue ever since James Madison established it as the second amendment of the constitution. 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. amend. II). Those in favor of the second amendment, believe that arms are used for protection, dangerous situations, and sports.

The Second Amendment protects the right of people to keep and bear arms. This amendment was a controversial among different people in the government. It was between letting the people keep their weapons or to not let the people keep their weapons. This amendment was important to the framers of the Constitution because it provided the country with a well-regulated militia. 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.

Next, some people say that they feel safe and secure when they have the right to bear arms as it can protect them from bad guys. However, with guns, people usually die. Moreover, without proper training it is also not safe to the users. This is the modern world, if someone kills someone or hurts someone in your family or you, does not give you the right to use deadly weapons to defend yourself. There are services which are there to protect people.

The second amendment from the Constitution gives the right of the people to bear arms and protect themselves. Although guns were very different back then, it doesn’t change the fact that the people should be able to protect themselves with weapons. Government shouldn’t be able to take away our freedoms, and the right to bear arms is one of those freedoms we have. The reason why we are a free country is because the colonies in the Revolutionary took up arms and revolted against their tyrannical King. Taking our second amendment would leave us defenceless and a government with power can take advantage of this and why we can’t revise the