The 2nd Amendment Rights

The major problem is that the political class got it all wrong when it decided to allow citizens to own guns and made it became more of a love affair. Apparently, people had held different types of rifles during the militia wars that took place a long time ago in the United States history. One most critical recognizance of the history of the guns can be seen by looking at Britain's Militia Acts that took place in 1661 and 1662. The amendment gave an opportunity for the American citizens for rival groups to fire salvos at each other, and it largely played a part in the enhancement of gun violence that is still in play in the country. It is evident that the history of guns can be traced back to the colonial times.

The 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution Probably the most debated amendment, the Second Amendment, was originally created so the people of the US could protect themselves but people argue that now it is doing more harm than good. Some say that this amendment is only meant to protect cities with militias but most say that it is meant for individuals to protects their homes, families, and themselves with firearms. The Second Amendment has had an impact on Americans since it’s creation. To this day we still exercise this right

The Second Amendment (in the constitution) is one that can bring up hours and hours of debate, maybe the most of them all. These debates, unfortunately, will never come to an end because there will be know agreeance in what would be done. In my opinion, what is trying to be done right now is not going to work, the politicians in office right now want to stop the weapons and not the perpetrators. Every time there is a mass shooting/bombing the idea of gun control comes up and it is not going to get us as a nation anywhere because that is not the issue. We know who is doing these mass murders such as the Boston bombings, Paris attacks, San Bernadino shooting, and Brussels attack that happen just this morning, stricter gun laws would not have

Some individuals contend that the Second Amendment's text is out-of-date, unclear, and does not necessarily represent the amendment's primary intent or goals. Others believe that the Second Amendment has indeed been misunderstood and that it doesn't give an unrestricted ability to own and carry any kind of firearm. They think the amendment should be modified in order to make it more clear what it means and communicate more effectively. With the amount of shooting rampages in our nation, these forces have turned into an even more urgent issue that requires direct action. There are critics on both sides of this matter, yet, guns should be allowed to remain owned and controlled by any competent but should have more laws to

Proponents of more gun control laws believe that the Second Amendment was intended exclusively for militias, that gun restrictions have always existed, and that gun regulations would prevent criminals from possessing firearms. However, Opponents claim that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns, that guns are needed for self-defense, and that gun ownership helps to dissuade crime. Because of this obvious difference, proponents of stricter firearm regulation demand more laws to help prevent mass shooting, and want reform in the area of background checks. Meanwhile, opponents of gun laws often accuse the proponents of manipulating a mass tragedy in order to further strengthen their fight. Gun ownership has been a tradition within the united states since before the country itself was formed.

Gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. Many citizens believe that if gun control is strictly enforced it would reduce the threat of crime. People have the right to bear arms for protection, or even just the pleasure of hunting and recreational activity. With the recent events involving firearms and mass shootings, people are skeptical whether to increase or decrease gun laws. Americans have a constitutional right to own handguns and stricter laws and licensing will not effectively save lives.

The 2nd Amendment and the "Right to bear arms" was only approved to prevent others from entering property and committing treason. A time when the "police" were not so widespread as it is today.” They believe that gun restrictions should be put down or we should take away the Second Amendment because we already have people to protect us from people who can hurt us. People who oppose the Second Amendment being taken away say “ guns don't kill people, people kill people. Somebody has to physically pick up a gun for the gun to go off and shoot somebody.

Every country has their issues, but some countries issues are worse than others. The United States of America has a very unique issue where the whole problem is said to be allowed according to the constitution. Gun laws and the right to bear arms has been a highly controversial subject for an exceptionally long time. Hardcore Republicans, which currently rule virtually all of US Government do not contribute to the solving of this issue. If you look at the evolution of firearms, there has been a drastic change in the fire rate, ammunition capacity, range, and accuracy.

Application of Conflict Theory to the Gun Control Debate Being a debate, the conflict theory is a very applicable theory that can be applied to guns/gun control laws and their roles in society. A debate is something that is associated with conflict, so by observing how deep and exactly in what directions this conflict extends, one might be able to understand this topic in a new light. In other words, by analyzing the very nature of this argument, this sociological perspective can be used to generate a deepened understanding of the debate on the extent of gun control laws. The Conflict Theory

The idea that the Founders wanted to put the citizens on an equal footing as the Government to provide a defence against oppression is also no longer a valid interpretation of the Second Amendment. The United States Federal Government has a vast arsenal of weapons at its disposal including Nuclear weapons, advocates of the Second Amendment would have to advocate for these weapons to be made available to all citizens. It is clear that the second Amendment does not have the same meaning as it did when it was ratified. The founding fathers did not consider the advancements of technology that exist today, or never considered the Amendment as an individual right but rather a group right for a recognised, well-regulated militia. The NRA has lobbied effectively to prevent the control and appropriate regulation of firearms in the United States of America and has taken ownership of the Second Amendment as a Battle cry against Federal Government.

The First Amendment has five parts to it; freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. This amendment was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and it was ratified by the states on December 15, 1791. The Constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Overall, the First Amendment protects one’s right to express themselves in America. What this means is that Congress cannot establish a nationwide religion, and that the people have the right to speak and write freely.

This is a big issue in the United states and in Maryland specifically. There are issues with who can purchase guns, what should be sold, and restrictions on firearms. This debate is continuous because in the U.S. Constitution we have

One of the most controversial issues our nation faces today is gun control laws. This controversy has been created due to the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution which states the right of citizens to bear arms; “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” (Cornell Law School). Anti-gun control laws believe that the amendment guarantees the right to bear any kind of firearms. On the other hand, we have does that believe that more controls laws should be implemented since the 2nd amendment was for the right of States to have an armed militia during wartime. Both sides have strong point, however, the safety of our children comes first, and a firearm means death in the wrong hands.

Majority of the people who oppose gun control believe that it violates the Second Amendment. The Revere Journal says that “In terms of the substance of the Second Amendment, the notion of a militia has no practical meaning today relative to what that term meant in the late 18th century. We are long past the days when farmers left the fields to become de facto soldiers, or when posses were rounded up to chase outlaws, or when settlers were on their own in a hostile environment. Some pretend that a lifestyle that no longer exists still has meaning in the America of the 21st century.” The people that agree on needing strict gun control laws will find a stronger connection to this image compared to the people who oppose

1,384,171 is the number of gun related deaths in America from 1968 to 2011. 1,171,177 is the number of war-related deaths throughout American history. In just 43 years, more Americans have died from gunfire than have died in all the wars of this country 's history. Since 1963, the number of homicides involving firearms has increased 48 percent in the United States while the number of homicides committed with other weapons has risen only 10 percent. The sudden influx of gun violence correlates with a change in interpretation of the Second Amendment, which 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" (Second Amendment, Bill of Rights).