THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!
"There are too many people who wish to live forever who don't know what to do with themselves today." -- Keith.
YOUR RANDOM DHS MONITORED PHRASE OF THE DAY
The Right To Keep And Bear Arms - Student EssayBy Anonymous 14-yr old writing her essay for 8th grade English class
In 1791, the founders of the United States wrote, "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 is the Second Amendment, guaranteeing American citizens the right to self-protection and safety. Society is safer when people carry guns because it gives citizens the ability to protect themselves from threats like criminals, such as violent intruders and attackers, as well as violent shooters.
People should be able to carry firearms because your most fundamental right is your right to defend your life, and guns help secure that. More than 200 years ago, our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment, guaranteeing that, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Even the founding fathers understood that having the means to defend yourself was necessary as a part of a free society. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment specifically protects Americans' right to own a handgun for protection. This means that any American citizen has the right to defend themselves. Wayne Lapierre, the Chief Executive Officer of the National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) stated,"Self-defense is our birthright. Firearms secure that birthright." Everyone has the right to defend themselves, and guns help protect that right.
For example, guns make women safer by allowing them to defend themselves from violent attackers. Armed with a gun, a woman can have advantage over any attacker. Armed women can protect themselves from attackers and fight back without a chance of getting hurt. The article, Testimony of Gayle S. Trotter, admitted that, "Over 90% of violent crimes occur without a firearm." This is because attackers use their size and physical strength to prey on women who are at a severe disadvantage. Since most violent attackers don't use guns, an armed woman has a great advantage over her assailant, making guns the great equalizer. Some people say that there are other ways women can defend themselves without using a gun. One example is mace, or pepper spray. However, a woman armed with mace would need the proximity of a hand-to-hand struggle, which would not be necessary if she had a firearm. Therefore, guns are a more reliable means of defense. To take a case in point, a woman from Dora, Alabama, who defended herself and her family against a 25-year-old intruder in her home with a firearm says, "There's so much talk about banning guns and gun control, but they're for protection. There was no way I could have fought him off." Guns keep women safe by giving them a means to defend themselves.
It is most important to understand that gun-control laws take away the protection of the people by disarming only the law-abiding citizens. The article, Testimony of Gayle S. Trotter, says, "Anti-gun legislation keeps guns away from the sane and law-abiding, but it does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals." This is because gun regulation affects only the guns of the law-abiding. Criminals will not be bound by such gestures because criminals don't listen to the law. More than 20,000 anti-gun laws are in effect throughout the United States. These laws don't do anything to help lessen violent crime. Wayne Lapierre, the CEO of the N.R.A., argues that, "All anti-gun laws do is put the innocent at the mercy of the lawless." In addition, President Barack Obama announced in 2013, "No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society." Even the president of the United States understands that gun laws do not affect violent criminals. Despite this, gun control advocates say the recent shootings prove that the nation's gun laws are too weak. However, nearly all mass shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. This is because violent shooters know that people in gun-free zones are not armed, meaning they don't have an efficient means to protect themselves. For instance, in 1976, Washington D.C. outlawed handguns, even for self-defense in homes. After that, armed crime skyrocketed, earning the nation's capital the shameful nickname, the "Murder Capital." Violent crimes occur the most in places with the toughest gun control laws because, as the article Testimony says, "These laws make easy targets of the sane and law-abiding." All anti-gun laws do is put citizens in danger by disarming them.
It is clear, then, that all Americans have the right to defend themselves. Guns are the most reliable means of defense, and give citizens the ability to protect themselves from violent attackers and fight back without a chance of getting hurt. All anti-gun laws do is take away the protection of citizens by disarming them, putting them in danger. As President Barack Obama said, "No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society." Therefore, society is safer when people carry guns because it gives citizens the ability to protect themselves from violent attacks.
Essay/Term paper: The second amendment and the right to bear arms
Essay, term paper, research paper: Gun Control
See all college papers and term papers on Gun Control
Need a different (custom) essay on Gun Control? Buy a custom essay on Gun Control
Need a custom research paper on Gun Control? Click here to buy a custom term paper.
 Cottrol, Robert, ed. Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the
Second Amendment. New York: Garland Publishing Inc., 1994
 Dowlut, Robert. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms in State Bills of Rights and Judicial
Interpretation. SAF 1993
 Freedman, Warren. The Privilege to Keep and Bear Arms. Connecticut: Quorum Books,
 Hickok, Eugene Jr., ed. The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Virginia: University Press of Virginia, 1991
 Kruschke, Earl PHD. Gun Control: A Reference Handbook. California: ABC-CLIO Inc.,
 Image on the cover page taken from TIME. Photographer unknown.
 Prune Yard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81 (1980)
 Zimring, Franklin E., Gun Control. Encyclopedia Encarta: 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation.
Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being committed with guns will be reduced and thus save lives. However while gun control laws may decrease criminals" access to guns, the same laws restricts gun owning citizens who abide by the law; these citizens make up a great majority of the opposing side of this argument. These people argue that the law was made with the individual citizens in mind. This group believes that the Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. One major group that is in strong opposition of stricter gun control laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA argues that having stricter gun control laws will only hinder law-abiding citizens. The final outcome on this debate will mainly depend on how this Amendment is going to be interpreted.
The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights 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. (Amendment II 1791)
This debate has produced two familiar interpretations of the Second Amendment. Advocates of stricter gun control laws have tended to stress that the amendment"s militia clause guarantees nothing to the individual and that it only protects the states" rights to be able to maintain organized military units. These people argue that the Second Amendment was merely used to place the states" organized military forces beyond the federal government"s power to be able to disarm them. This would guarantee that the states would always have sufficient force at their command to abolish federal restraints on their rights and to resist by arms if necessary. The Second Amendment was written shortly after the colonist had gained their freedom from Britain, and the reason for their gaining independence is that they were tired of living under British rule and especially under the leadership of King George the III. These gun control advocates argue that the Second Amendment grew out of the colonists" fear of standing armies and their belief that having militias that were composed of ordinary citizens was the surest way of maintaining their freedom (3).
The opposite side of this debate consists of those who claim that the amendment guarantees some sort of individual right to arms. This view comes from the literal wording of the Second Amendment, which states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Along with this argument, the NRA and other groups in opposition of gun control argue that the first, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments are all constructed to refer to the citizens as individuals and not as a collective state. These gun advocates feel that if one is to give a rational interpretation of the collective view to the constitution, then one would have to assume that the Framers referred to the individuals in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments; to the states in the second amendment, and then separated the states and the people in the tenth amendment, although they feel that this was inconsistent with the wording of the second amendment (5).
Proponents of strict gun control laws, including Handgun Control Inc., and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence argue that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective right rather than an individual right. When the occasion occurs that Americans find it necessary to band together to defend their rights, they are constitutionally guaranteed the right to own the firearms they need for that purpose. They advocate restrictions on some types of firearms by citing high numbers of gun-related deaths in the United States. These proponents argue that by making stricter gun laws this will in turn reduce the number to crimes that are committed with guns and would thus save lives. One of their supporting arguments is that each year in the United States, more than 35,000 people are killed by guns, which is a death rate that is much higher than any other nation. Attacks involving a gun are five times more likely to result in a death than in any similar attacks made with a knife. Also, in 1992 guns were the weapons used in approximately two-thirds of the murders of the United States (8). However, while gun control laws may decrease criminals access to guns, those same laws restrict law-abiding citizens.
Opponents of gun control laws, including organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA), object to the inconvenience these laws may cause to law-abiding gun buyers or owners and would not prevent the possession of guns by criminals. The NRA argues that about half of all United Stated families own at least one gun, and that the most frequent motives for owning a gun is to protect the home, hunting or target shooting, and for collecting. Those who oppose restrictions on gun ownership find support in the language of the Second Amendment and believe that it should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to fire arms. The NRA has strenuously lobbied for the passage of state laws allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. In arguing that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arm, the NRA argues that the Fourteenth Amendment enforces the Second (3). The Fourteenth Amendment states:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (From Amendment XIV section 1.1868)
In this argument the NRA stresses that "no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." They feel that this clearly makes it unlawful for the state to pose restrictions on firearms which is a privilege that is given to the citizens of the United States in the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment has not yet been applied to the states, either directly or through incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the United States v. Cruickshank the United States Supreme Court in 1875 held that the Second Amendment restricts only Congress and the federal government; this was later affirmed by the same court in Presser v Illinois in 1886. Thus, the nature of the Second Amendment does not provide a right that is enforced by the Fourteenth Amendment. The courts view that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to protect the states against the federal or national government, and not to create a personal right that either the state or federal authorities are bound to respect.
Guarantees of individual liberties under federalism have two components: the federal constitution and state constitutions. Dependence should be first placed in the state"s Bill of Rights, declaration of rights, because the United States Supreme Court has explicitly acknowledged each state"s "sovereign right to adopt in it own Constitution individual liberties more expansive than those conferred by the Federal Constitution."(7). The written content of most states bills of rights provides greater protection of the right to arms than does the Second Amendment. Currently the constitutions of forty-three states guarantee a right to arms. Of the seven states that do not have a clear constitutional guarantee to arms, three of those have a right to self-defense and one considers the right to life a built-in right. The right to self-defense can only be given force and effect if its guarantee includes the right to own arms for defensive purposes (2).
In addition, state courts consider the right to bear arms to be a civil right and consider such a right to protect liberty and property interest. This has allowed plaintiffs to the use of the Federal Civil Rights Act to sue state officials for violating a state created property or liberty interest to keep and bear arms.
The NRA"s opposition to the Brady Bill, which is a federal hand gun law that was first proposed in 1985, helped to delay its passage for seven years. Congress finally passed the bill in 1993 and it went into effect in 1994. This law provides a five-day waiting period to allow local law enforcement officials to make sure the purchaser is qualified to own a hang gun. The law also established a $200 federal firearm license fee and a $90 annual license renewal fee. The NRA also unsuccessfully opposed a 1994-crime bill because it included a ban on the importation of semiautomatic "assault" weapons (8). Currently the constitutionality of the Brady Bill is going to be decided by the Supreme Court this term. The issue being the constitutionality of federal involvement in basically states issues. In 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court declared another gun law, one that banned guns within 1,000 feet of schools, unconstitutional. The States, not Congress, have the authority to enact such criminal laws the Court held. The Brady Bill would appear in the same category.
The constitutional issue at stake is the question, do we, or do we not, have the right as individuals to possess firearms. The courts have never struck down a gun control law because many people feel that the Amendment guarantees citizens free access to fire arms. The courts have interpreted the Second Amendment as applying only to militia weapons. The federal government and all U.S. states do have some gun control laws. These laws are based on several strategies: forbidding people who are considered to be unreliable from obtaining any firearms; prohibiting anyone other than the police, the military, and persons with special needs from acquiring high-risk guns; and requiring waiting periods before purchasing a gun or a gun license. The most common strategies are based on preventing unreliable people from obtaining guns, such as people who have committed a felony. Federal and state laws also prohibit minors from purchasing guns. In 1993 the U.S Congress passed the Brady Bill, which was named after a former White House press secretary James Brady. Brady and his wife because proponents of gun control after Brady was shot and seriously wounded during the 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan (4).
As the debate over slavery gradually changed from being constitutional to unconstitutional so will the debate over gun control. The political culture that once supported slavery changed gradually over time once people saw more and more how unequal it was. It is inevitable that overtime, the political culture on gun control will also change, it will only take a few instances to help in the defining moment on deciding the danger of having a world without restrictions on guns. These moments will be seen throughout our nation in the form of examples of gun-related accidents and kids committing "Columbine High School" like acts. Once these things are taken into consideration only then will our "right to bear arms" be clearly defined. Currently public opinion seems to be in favor of having tighter gun restrictions as was shown with the passing of the Brady Bill. Though with this majority being in favor of gun control these acts of legislation are rather slow in forming, due to the NRA and the vagueness of the Second Amendment. Another hindering factor is that in spite of the public majority being in favor of stricter gun control, the states are moving in a different direction. The reason behind this action is that the constitutionality of tighter gun control laws is becoming a question. Once the Supreme Court of the United States answers this question on the legality of infringing on the right to bear arms we will know what our exact right is.
Other sample model essays:
Society / The Slums
Being raised in the slums of New York City there were not many role models for me to take after. At seventeen years old, I dropped out of school to pursue my only chance of success; long distance ru...
Society / The Zen Of Zinn
Dr. Howard Zinn"s A People"s History of the United States might be better titled A Proletarian"s History of the United States. In the first three chapters Zinn looks at not only the history ...
Society / Thou Shall Not Kill
) Capital punishment is the killing of a killer. The act of capital punishment is wrong and useless and I have few reasons why. When a murderer is executed or shot by lethal injection it...
Society / Till Death Do Us Part
The status quo of marriage in American society, in some cases, is a moderately complicated issue. I do know, however, that before the marriage takes place there is an interlude called the dating p...
Society / Tobacco
Tobacco comes from the tobacco plant, nicotiana tobacum. Leaves of the plant may be smoked, inhaled in form of snuff, or chewed. Tobacco smoke contains about 4000 chemicals. Many of them (nicotine,...
Society / TransiciÃ³n Politica
TRANSICIÓN ¿HACIA DÓNDE? Un término que da idea de movimiento, de dinamismo y que se aplica a los ajustes que viven los sistemas políticos, principalmente aque...
Society / U.S Human Rights Intervention
Should the U.S. intervene to prevent or end violations of human rights (including genocide) in foreign countries when these violations do not directly affect other American interests? The United Sta...
Alcohol and Drugs / Underage Drinking In America:
It"s Monday night at about 11:30, but I"m doing something different tonight that I haven"t done on a Monday night in a while; I"m staying sober. Yes, I am underage (19 years and 6 months to be exact) ...
Alcohol and Drugs / Under Age Drinking
Everyone knows that it is illegal to consume alcohol until the age of 21. Many people are In agreement with this legal restriction. Some would even say that it needs to be raised. Why is 21 the "...
Society / Unions
Labor unions are defined as "an organization of workers acting together to negotiate their wages and working conditions with employers" (Kapoor, 277). Unions first began as early as the 1700...