Category: 2nd Amendment

Although the 2nd Amendment is only 27 words in its entirety, it has been the focus of controversy many times in the last 223 years. In 1791 when the second amendment was added to the bill of rights America did not have a well put together army. They relied on the civilians to pretty much be the protection if someone invaded their town or city. So an addition was made to The Bill of Rights 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.’ (Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment U.S. Constitution)

This is one of the rights Americans have, and have fought to keep for over 200 years, this is a right that won’t easily be given up if the government tries to take it away or change it. Americans deserve to have the unalienable right to bear arms. Many believe that this amendment is abused, so they think it should be taken away. Just because a few people abuse guns or don’t take care to have them locked up means that the whole nation is now not allowed to own a gun.

There are two kinds of people for this topic, the first are the ones that are in favor of gun control. These people that say the founding fathers wrote the second amendment for and only for a citizen’s militia, and now since there really isn’t Americans that are serving in a citizen’s Anderson 2 militia they believe that this amendment is outdated and should no longer be in the bill of rights. Then there are those who oppose gun control, these people say that the founding fathers wrote the second amendment for the citizen’s militia but also to keep guns at home for protection of your home and loved ones, hunting, and any other reason just so long that its legal.

The most correct side to be on is the side of the second kind of people, but not because of the love of guns and its fun to shoot them and go hunting. There should not be gun control because if the government can take away our RIGHT to bear arms that has been our RIGHT for 223 years, then what else can the government take away? The last sentence of the Second Amendment says, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Infringed in the dictionary means: to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress. People are trying to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress on our right to keep and bear arms.

The last government who tried to take away gun rights was the German government, and look what happened to them! Now would our government do that? No, but is our government perfect? Most would say no on that one as well. Let’s say somehow the government did take away the second amendment, and then someone did invade us, how could we have a citizen’s militia with no weapons? We understand now we have an army but they can’t be everywhere at once.

Although Americans have the right to bear arms, there should be a regulation on guns, there should be background checks ran, and the two day cool off period should also be in effect. If Americans are going to be able to argue that they are allowed to have guns, then they need to go through a background check and wait the two days before they can pick up their gun. It only Anderson 3 seems fair to be put through these tests, if you haven’t done anything bad then there should be nothing to worry about.

But if you are a convicted felon, or have been to prison for a gun related crime, then obviously the citizens aren’t going to want you to have a gun. The citizens need to also take responsibility and not sell guns to random people that you know nothing about.

Another problem with gun control is, if guns do get banned, if we do lose our Second amendment, then the same thing is going to happen that happened with the ban of alcohol in 1919. There are going to be bootleggers that smuggle the guns, sell them illegally, there will be more gangs then there are now, there is going to be a lot of fighting and a lot more death than if we were to just leave it alone and do our part as citizens to be responsible with the guns that we have.

On June 26th, 2008, in the District of Columbia vs Heller case, the U.S. Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment since United States vs Miller (1939). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of 5-4, so just barely making it legal to own a firearm in your own home.

Ever since the ruling of this suit, people who are against gun control and the NRA have been getting ready to file many suits against gun control laws in many states and they believe because of the outcome of the District of Columbia vs Heller that these laws may be at risk in being taken down. Although it is good that Americans can have guns, whether they are for the protection of their home, hunting, or just having them because they are cool to have. There Anderson 4 comes a point at which their needs to be some regulation of these guns and who is acquiring them.

The NRA and the people throwing suits at the states need to realize what could happen if they keep fighting for what they are fighting for. Do they want everyone to have a gun? Even the criminals who have had violent acts in their past to own a gun? Or even have a concealed weapons permit? There needs to be a line drawn somewhere, guns are regulated through background checks and the people of America get to own guns in their homes. If you don’t pass a background check, you don’t get a gun.

Now of course will people always be able to get guns whether they pass a background check or not? Yes, there is always someone who doesn’t care and will sell you a gun. Even if they did make the gun laws more strict, Americans always know how to get around it. Which is crazy really to think about, if the people don’t like what the government is doing, well then they just go behind the backs of the government and do it anyway.

There is probably always going to be gun laws and restrictions, people are going to be fighting that forever, but as long as people don’t abuse the right to have guns, then Americans will always have guns. It’s really simple, be a responsible adult and you will get treated like a responsible adult.

Introduction

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 in bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment protects the rights of citizens to bear arms such as guns to help prevent mass shootings. The Second Amendment is being brought up more and more due to gun violence happening more recently. When the second amendment was added to the constitution in 1791 they could not know how advanced are weaponry would become. They also couldn’t of known what future gun violence would have looked like.

Legal Gun Attachments

According to the video Two legal Gun Modifications, the bump fire stock and gat crank can be added to a normal semi-automatic rifle to increase the rate of fire from 45-60 rounds per minute to 400-800 rounds per minute.The gat crank can also improve the rate of fire for a semi-automatic rifle although not as powerful as the bump fire stock, the rate of fire goes from 45-60 rounds per minute to 200-300 rounds per minute. I found out that if you search gun attachments there is a lot of sites such as Amazon selling gun modifications to all types of guns such as pistols or even AR’s. The article 6 Psychotic Gun Attachments states that you can buy a shell for your shotgun called “Dragon’s Breath” which is a suitable name considering it fires litteral fire from your shotgun, the fire comes from the magnesium the manufactures put in the shells. The same article also states that you can buy an attachment to your shotgun so it can fire a spear. There’s also an attachment that can “bend your rifle” so it can shoot around corners, this weapon attachment is known as “The Cornershot”. The video Rapid fire 100 round double drum AR 15 w/ ACOG shows how powerful the attachment called the “double drum magazine” is. Which is a massive magazine that takes ten seconds of fully automatic bullet spraying to empty. You can buy them for everything from rifles and handguns to submachine guns and assault rifles. All of these attachments can be bought legally in the U.S. Many people in U.S think that these attachments are unnecessary and that these attachments are offensive opposed to defensive, there purpose is to inflict harm.

The Columbine

On April 20, 1999 at 11:57 AM a mass shooting occurred at the Columbine High School, two men named Eric David Harris and Dylan Klebold were heavily armed with weapons and bullet proof vests. They killed a total of 13 people, 1 teacher and 12 students. According to the article Weapons At Columbine, Eric was carrying 10-shot Hi-Point model 995 carbine rifle on a strap, and Dylan was carrying an Intratec TEC-DC9 (9-mm semi-automatic handgun) attached to a strap. Both these weapons are very deadly. At the time this was the biggest shooting in american history, which just goes to show that more deadly incidents have happened over the years. Now the biggest shooting in american history happened in Las Vegas in 2017 leaving 58 people dead. The Columbine shooting has been recently discussed by the group March For Our Lives because the 20th anniversary of the columbine happened recently on 4/20/19.

Shootings

The article Teachers can carry guns in Florida states that due to the shooting in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida a new law was passed that allows a choice for teachers to carry guns. This is a controversial experiment due to adding more guns to the problem. A school shooting occurred on April 16, 2007 in Blacksburg, Virginia. The Virginia Tech shooting left 32 people dead and 17 injured. At the time this shooting was the largest shooting by a single gunman. Now the biggest shooting has up to 58 deaths and leaving almost 500 injured. This shooting occurred in Las Vegas On the night of October 1, 2017 when a single gunman released bullet spraying madness into a crowd of 22,000 concertgoers. According to CNN news another deadly shooting occurred on December 14, 2012 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, leaving 27 people dead 20 of them children and 7 adults the children being 6 to 7 years old. The shooter then turned the gun on himself before the police could get there. These occurrences are happening due to availability to guns (learn more in first chapter) so if everyone who owned a firearm had a safe for there weapons, had reasonable weapons, and also kept weapons away from children then the problem would reduce considerably.

Activists On The Problem

According to the article Gun Violence Will Be Stopped By These 9 Young Activists, Kendra Woods is an 17 year old youth activist who was at school the day of the Parkland shooting. She participated in a walkout with at least 50 classmates in St. Louis, Missouri, and the classmates story went viral after school administrators kicked them from returning to school. According to the same article another youth activist who was apart of the Parkland shooting. Her name is Emma González and she is 18 years old. Her story was learned when she called out lawyers and the NRA or the National Rifles Association at a press conference a few days after the Parkland shooting. According to the article David Hogg (activist) David Hogg is a well known teen activist. At just nineteen years old he has participated in many gun violence protests such as the March for Our Lives program. He survived the Stoneman Douglas high school shooting, that’s when he realized that he needed to say something or do something. These activists are making an important impact on gun violence by helping others have a voice in the subject.

Conclusion

I would like to reiterate that gun violence is a large issue in this case. It is a statistical fact that only 4% of shootings were related to mental health issues. Also, over 30,000 Americans die in a result of gun violence each year. This has been an issue in our Country for many years and it is turning into a huge problem that needs to be stopped.

The government positively affects my life by allowing U.S citizens including me, to possess weapons such as various types of firearms. Allowing U.S Citizens to carry firearms has been in effect since 1791, this ratification to the bill of rights keeps citizens protected and safe in their own homes. This ratification is called the 2nd amendment, the 2nd amendment allows anyone who is a U.S Citizen and does not have any obstructing felonies to possess a firearm with a license, these licenses have to be provided by government authority, typically at gun shops or gun ranges.

The 2nd Amendment has been in question many times, the most recent being District of Columbia v. Heller in which the supreme court ruled that it was unconstitutional to make people who have guns in their homes to disassemble or be nonfunctional with a trigger lock, as this violated the 2nd Amendment, they also tried to ban handguns as a whole which was also ruled as unconstitutional due to handguns being classified as a firearm, which is in protection of the 2nd amendment.

To possess a firearm you must first obtain a firearms license through a registered license dealer such as your local gun shop or firing range. Although the right to possess a firearm is essential, rules and regulations need to be set so that not just anyone is able to obtain one.

Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 prohibited the sell of handguns to anyone under the age of 21, this is one regulation that is essential in preventing anyone from possessing a firearm. This regulation is needed to prevent immature people from getting their hands on a firearm.

The government impacts my daily life by allowing U.S citizens to protect themselves with firearms and prevent harmful things from happening with their weapons. The atf is what helps make rules and regulations on firearms. In my personal opinion, one reason no country has ever tried to invade the U.S would be due to our easy access to guns, if a country intends to invade for example texas, citizens of texas who own guns could potentially protect themselves from the enemy, this is one reason i believe firearms are essential.

In general firearms are essential to keep people protected from harmful events, such as a shooting. Although firearms can be used to prevent such events, they can be used to cause them, i do however believe that their needs to be more regulation on whos able to obtain firearms and who isn’t. These types of regulations would help prevent things like school shootings. In recent years school shootings has increased a ton and many believe its due to little regulation on the possibility to obtain a firearm, i believe that there should be more stipulations on this.

Like a gun fires with a deadly surgical strike President Donald J Trump delivers a shocking and powerful speech to the men and women of the NRA, The speech NRA given by Donald J Trump on April 12th focuses on his appreciation for the men and women who are fighting for are 2nd amendment rights, Trump gave his speech on account of the recent protest on gun violence, stricter gun control laws and an implement of gun control laws by our arms treaty to effectively get his supporters more on his side Trump uses pathos, logos, ethos in his speech to draw in his crowd and keep them emotionally engaged throughout his entire speech to really get all the supporters he can onto his side with the upcoming election just around the corner.

One of the various methods trump uses to seduce his crowd is by playing on their sentiments to grip them enthralled by everything he has to say by very dramatically using pathos. Trump says thank you to his audience about 20 times to make the crowd feel good and emotionally tie them by playing on their emotions by making the audience feel like the most important man in the world is thankful to them. The use of pathos is very evident since Trump wants to get supporters on his side with the election coming up speeches like these need a strong emphasis on pathos to make the audience feel like he’s doing a colossal job. Another piece of compelling evidence is Trump says to the audience “remember that glorious day in American history” In a reference to the signing of the 2nd amendment trump says this because his whole sort of agenda in this speech is to promote the idea of the 2nd amendments and how Americans need to fight for their rights what better way than to use pathos to really excite and validate what his supporters think. Trump uses the phrase we are all great Americans because America was founded on the right to bear arms and the peace and security it might bring to one’s home. Trump uses facts, statistics to back up his claim Trump states “if a civilian is armed than there is less of a chance for a violent crime to be committed”. This is a strong piece of pathos due to the fact that Trump is essentially telling his crowd if you are armed in a public place than you are less likely to be a victim of gun violence. Trump states that unemployment has reached an all-time low since the Bush and Obama administration did very little to protect Americans. This is an example of strong Pathos since trump has had a strong emphasis on how much Americans had to suffer through both administrations he particularly put this phrase in his speech to seal the deal with his crowd and sway them more to his side the “ the side for change and prosperity”

President Trump is going to use logos in his speech to make his speech sound knowledgeable and credible to make his audience feel like he’s an expert in what he’s talking about. Trump is the president of the united states and states that in his presidency he has dealt with armed conflicts throughout the middle east and know the value of feeling protected by the use of 2nd amendment This a valid piece of logos since he has been in office for nearly 3 years and has had to deal with conflicts in the middle east, whereas some situations if the citizens were armed most conflicts us has been involved in wouldn’t have reached such a large scale. At times, the president has expressed much more openness to gun control than some of his fellow Republicans. In a February 2018 meeting at the White House in the wake of the Parkland high school massacre, the president mocked some Republicans at the table for being ‘petrified’ of the so-called “boogieman” National Rifle Association, insisting he had more flexibility wasn’t so afraid of the powerhouse gun lobby. As president of the United States of America he already has plenty of logos in this speech and must be respected as a high ranking official in the government but also as a businessman who has been able to use his countless years of experience to get the united states countless jobs secure a new arms treaty and abandon the old one and bring millions of jobs to America Trump uses the phrase we are all great Americans since America was founded on the right to bear arms and the peace and security it might bring to one’s home. There also have been countless things trump has don’t to protect Americans and bend to what the left essentially wants, for example, Trump did follow through on his pledge to ban bump stocks, after saying he would do so. A bump stock a device that turns a firearm into a firearm that operates like an automatic weapon was used in the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, the deadliest mass shooting in American history. this is a valid use of logos for various reasons such as trump states that if just 1 armed civilian or teacher was present at the recent mass shooting it may have very well deter the person from opening fire or even it could have eliminated the treat before any major damage could have occurred. Trump uses the phrase unemployment has reached an all-time low since the bush administrations and the Obama administration did not do enough to protect Americans. In this use of logos, trump compares the previous administrations and their failures compared to his administration’s success. In his speech trump highlights, some very specific details the Obama administration did that failed to keep Americans safe “ Obama brookerd an arms treaty that had no significant benefits for the citizens of America instead he caused more feelings of uneasiness in many Americans.

President Trump uses Ethos in his speech to reach the people who support him on a different level his use of ethos in his speech is primarily to ensure the people in the crowd are on his side and support him 110%. Trump states that he is thrilled to have the ladies and gentlemen of the NRA here with him and it is a pleasure to be able to talk in front of such a courageous crowd, he says that to make the crowd feel special and make them feel like the president of the united states of America upholds them. I think to have the most important and powerful man in the world to admire you and feel honored to have you or a crowd in his presence is beyond such a high honor and that is a compelling example of ethos right there at the beginning of trump’s historic speech he made sure to recognize key people in the NRA that have stood and fought against opposing sides in the pursuit of maintaining American freedom and liberty, One quote trump snook in there to validate the efforts of the men and women of the NRA was “ to conquer a nation, first disarm its citizens” As that is what Trump and his supporters feel like the left is trying to do. To see Trump beaming onstage in Indianapolis, then, was to watch a Republican’s relationship with the NRA come full circle. Other than his own rallies, there are few places where Trump gets the enthusiastic welcome he feels he deserves. For this president, uniform praise takes precedence over most things, and especially over the backlash that could come from daring to toe the party line on guns. His lively reception from the NRA and the pleasure he clearly took from it sent a strong signal that his party’s stance toward guns is more resolute than ever. Trump states that there is corruption at the highest level of the democratic party to make the audience feel like trump and his party are the last true one’s fighting for the American people and fighting for our 2nd amendment. Trump has highlighted key people in the nations government that he feels are trying to strip citizens of their natural-born rights such as “Ilhan Omar, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Cruise, Tim Ryan, Stacy Abrams, Etc, Trump believes these politicians are speer heading the attack on are governments foundation and our citizen’s rights. Trump states that Americans are being taught to believe that our rights given to us by the founders of our great nation are under attack by the left and that sets his supporters wild he used that statement to seal the deal and make it seem like they must protect our rights. Trump used this very statement to seal the deal and get the whole of the NRA completely on his side but I believe if you look deeper into his choice of words you see that he selected such a choice of words that if given by the right person in the right setting against something they entirely opposed to you gain complete control over and more credibility to pull or grasp them into believing anything you have to say and that was completely apparent in the speech he gave that brought him a slew of new supporters.

In the speech NRA given by president trump, you can clearly see how effectively he used ethos pathos and logos to reach the hearts and minds of his supporters and make them feel like he looks up to them and they are true Americans.

Although it would be very hard to ratify or delete the Second Amendment, some of our congressmen are fighting to get rid of the Second Amendment and ban guns. The Joyce Foundation states that banning weapons would greatly decrease gun violence. Although it would help that would take the guns out of the law-abiding citizens as well. Gun laws are irrational and would destroy our nation.

Stopping a bad guy with a gun seems impossible wouldn’t you want there to be a good guy with a gun to stop him? Self-defense shootings rarely happen but when they do lives are saved and criminals are wiped off the earth. Life is short already and getting it cut short by a murderer that could have been stopped if a good guy was carrying a gun is disgraceful. Although only 48% of people that own guns say they will use them for self-protection, that is still a good amount of people that will protect not only themselves in danger, someone else as well (Raphelson). Research shows that in national prisons 34% of the prisoners were scared off, wounded or shot by the victim they were attacking/robbing. Home invasions happen too often and in the circumstance that your home is invaded there is nearly a 50% chance that the intruder will have a weapon of some sort. Having a firearm to protect yourself is crucial to survival at that point in time. If the government takes our guns away how will they protect ourselves in that quick and sudden scenario?

Hunting is a lifestyle. A lifestyle that people not only me but the other 43% of the United States don’t wanna see go away. Hunting is a hobby of many United States citizens. Hunting also for some families in different parts of the United States uses hunting as their food source. Many anti-hunting people think that all hunters are in it for the trophy hunting. While getting a nice trophy is a plus. Many Hunters are in it for the meat, family bonding, being with friends, and getting outdoors and being closer to nature (David Draper).

Declining the number of deaths and violence caused by guns is a must. Shootings like Parkland and Columbine need to be stopped. This could be stopped with gun control, tighter security in schools, or just mental health classes. The one that is the most obvious is tighter gun control. Parklands shooter was armed with an AR-15 that shoots as fast as he could pull the trigger. More restricted background checks and limits to what style of gun can be bought could greatly reduce the death toll in these shootings. One thing needs to be clear, they will never go away. There will always be an insane man with a gun. Although the tighter the laws the harder it will be to get those guns. Mental health laws need to be more strict, not allowing people that can danger the public be allowed to purchase or have firearms (President Trump).

In the case that a person is in a shooting wouldn’t they want to be the one with protection. Everyone at that moment would say yes. Having a firearm in the moment of a shooting or some other attack on themselves or their loved ones could save their lives. Being the hero would greatly outway being another victim of the disgusting minded people who use guns in a bad way.

The pros outway the cons in many ways. Although tragedy strikes many of those tragedies could have been stopped by a good guy with a gun! Self-defense is something everyone has the right to and they should pursue that. Hunting provides not only a great hobby but food, time outdoors and bonding time with family and friends. Although banning guns sounds like a great idea, a criminal that wants to kill will find a way to get that gun. He is already doing something illegal, why would he let one more illegal act affect him? Therefore having guns is the best thing for American citizens.

Works Cited

1. “10 GREAT THINGS: What To Love About America.” Dinesh D’Souza, 5 July 2017, https://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/10-great-things-about-america/.
2. “Be Informed. Gun Control.” Gun Control – Just Facts, https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#crime.
3. Draper, David. “Study Shows More Hunters Are In It For The Meat.” Field & Stream, 21 Oct. 2003, https://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/wild-chef/2013/10/study-shows-more-hunters-are-it-meat/.
4. “Gun Violence Prevention and Justice Reform.” The Joyce Foundation, http://www.joycefdn.org/programs/gun-violence?gclid=Cj0KCQjw6eTtBRDdARIsANZWjYaCnWcUXIeFq5X9oWLdDZtKthTfdp2UzwVxBmsnzmzuiFsDDu6Pt8gaAt3eEALw_wcB.
5. P, Kim. “23 Home Invasion Statistics You Should Be Afraid Of.” CreditDonkey, 5 Aug. 2017, https://www.creditdonkey.com/home-invasion-statistics.html.
6. Raphelson, Samantha. “How Often Do People Use Guns In Self-Defense?” NPR, NPR, 13 Apr. 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/04/13/602143823/how-often-do-people-use-guns-in-self-defense.
7. Rogers, Adam. “How to Reduce Gun Violence: Ask Some Scientists.” Wired, Conde Nast, 6 Aug. 2019, https://www.wired.com/story/how-to-reduce-gun-violence-ask-some-scientists/.

Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has evaded dealing with the issue of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms in the U.S. Constitution. The last time that they did was back in 2008 and 2010 which saw victories for those in favor of carrying fire arms. The facts are, there are different sides to this argument, whether that the 2nd Amendment covers all weapons, or certain ones, and if we are sticking to the constitution and federalism. The scriptures say: “He said to them: ‘But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one’”. The reality is everyone has the right to defend themselves if need be and the Supreme Court seems to think so too. However, to what degree is the problem, some say that the laws are good enough, and others think that we should be able to carry whatever weapon we want.

According to Kate Broome (2018), Federalism is the relationship between the federal government and the state government. The article also points out that the constitution is what gave us federalism even though the word is never mentioned. When the Second Amendment was ratified in December 1791, it was done so regarding to help the citizens to protect themselves against others and against a tyrannical government. It was to provide state with militias that could provide security and ward off invaders. At that time there were not all these weapons that we have now, like AR-15s, semi-automatic machineguns, or even fully automatic. You could not just browse the internet and shop for all the so-called bells and whistles for these kinds of weapons, for they simply did not exist, neither did the internet for that matter.

The Second Amendment was created by James Madison. The Second Amendment goes as follows, A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed on. The problems that people are arguing over is where it describes a state militia, which today would be our national guard, and where it states the right of the people to keep and bear arms, along the way the interpretation has become loss. According to Darrell Miller (2016) “The Second Amendment institution facilitates or constrains Second Amendment activity and at is a core feature self-defense’. He goes on to list those that which would be considered First Amendment institutions and those that could be considered Second Amendment such as, a church, a mosque, or a home.

One of the arguments for carrying guns now is because of the state of our country and the crime. According to Cornell, Saul, and Emma Cornell (2018) “Firearms violence in the United States has reached epidemic proportions, with more than 30 000 Americans dying because of gun violence each year’. There can be many factors associated with that, and not just the gun. To say that a gun made someone kill someone is impossible, at the end of the day everyone has choices and whether good or bad, they all have consequences to them. Killing is not something new, it has been happening since the beginning, you can go all the way back to genesis in the Bible. “Cain spoke to Abel his brother. And when they were in the field, Cain revolted against his brother Abel and killed him”. Guns are easy to purchase and can be found not just in stores but on the streets as well which is another reason those arguing for the right to carry. The right to protect themselves out in public and to protect their families as well. ‘Legislation designed to improve public safety and reduce firearm violence is fully consistent with the American legal tradition’. There has always been laws in place for gun control, the problem up to this point is defining the terms. There have been few U.S. Supreme Court cases that have specifically dealt with the 2nd Amendment, compared to the individual state supreme courts.

Up until 2008 there have only been 3 U.S. Supreme Court cases that dealt with the 2nd Amendment. They where United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886) and United States v. Miller (1939). Since 2008 there has been 3 court cases with one the way sometime in 2019.They were District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), and Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016). The Court has agreed to hear oral argument sometime in 2019. The argument in this case is regarding a New York City law that forbids any transfer of unloaded and locked firearms from one’s residence to anywhere other than one of seven shooting ranges within that city. No-one knows what the outcome will be on that but if it is any indication of the previous three court cases it might go in favor of those that are for the right to bear arms and not those that want more gun control to reduce the stem of violence that occurs within in our country. What it going to be interesting is if they are going to see it as they did the previous cases.

The first court case that came about in this century happened in 2008, it was the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The argument was that Heller, a D. C. police man, who had applied to register a handgun that he wanted to keep at home was refused by the district, so he filed suit on the grounds that it violated the Second Amendment. He believed that not being allowed to have an unlicensed gun in the home kept him from defending himself, the district court had dismissed the case, however the D.C circuit over turned it. The U.S Supreme court upheld the decision with a narrow ruling decided in 2008 on a 5/4 split, which embodies many of the central problems of a historically oriented legal hermeneutics. Based on the Second Amendment protects an individual 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. He goes on further to say that “The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms’.

The argument in the McDonald v. City of Chicago case was different regarding the other cases, this case was not only about the second amendment, but the fourteen amendment as well. According to Dan Goodman (2010), the question was this, “Whether the Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges, or Immunities, or Due Process Clauses”. In the argument they point out that the right to bear arms is an American citizen privilege and that no state can abridge that. One way to look at it is this, if it only pertains to American citizenship, and not state then the 2nd amendment then would be ruled by federal and not state laws. In the article states that they fought to overturn the slaughter house cases, elated to the Privileges or Immunities Clause. It goes on to say that Slaughterhouse first observed that while individuals held both federal and state citizenship, the Clause at issue protects only privileges and immunities of national citizenship.

According to Christian Corrigan (2012), “The Supreme Court recently held in a 5–4 decision that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is “fully applicable to the States, through the Fourteenth Amendment. A In both cases they went with what was already in the constitution and in the Privileges and Immunities clause that was set forth and did not use other deciding factors to come up with a verdict.

Caetano v. Massachusetts case was on the grounds of a stun gun was protected under the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms. After a Caetano threatened her ex-boyfriend with one after he was threating her. The Massachusetts law made it illegal to have stun guns and made it an offense. Therefore, she was convicted and put in jail, the reasoning behind it was the courts of Massachusetts said stun guns were not around at the time and that the military did not even use them. She did appeal, and the conviction was upheld until 2018 when the U.S. Supreme court took it up.

The U.S. Supreme court vacated their decision and overturned it sighting not only the previous cases mentioned, but the fact the second amendment gives someone the right to defend themselves. The fact that she was using a stun gun was irrelevant in their eyes, she was defending herself and the courts considered stun guns less dangerous than an actual gun. They also mentioned that someone could use anything to defend themselves when their lives were being threatened. In all these cases they reviewed what was in the constitution and the articles and they stayed within that realm and did not overreached. However, it makes no sense to say that someone can only defend themselves to a certain degree because of laws that are in place. The fact the courts took their time and reviewed everything is also a good thing because they did not rush to judgement the let the process play out.

When it comes to a Christian Worldview, there is a balanced just like in our country, the Lord does not want us just going around killing people just because we think something might happen to us. There must be a legitimate threat to us or our families. In the scriptures it says: ‘But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever”. It is our duty to look after are families and ourselves and to make sure they are looked after, not just with financial matters, and food, but when it comes to their safety as well. The reality is, there are people on this earth that do bad things, it is not different then back in the beginning. People back then protected their live stocks, their land, their homes and their loved ones, nothing has changed, just what year it is in the people themselves.

At the end of the day our lives are in God’s hands, and he is our protector, but we are also responsible for doing our part as well. God gave us the ability to defend ourselves and to help those in need. Everyone knows what the bible says about murder, it is in the ten-commandments and it is straight forward, along with the other 9 laws. The reality is with the state of man and those do not believe and care not to, and for those that have no regard for the laws of the land or of life. We will always need the right to bear arms and protect what is ours. This world will never be perfect, it cannot because of the fall of man and sin.

The ten amendments’ in the US Constitution guarantee our natural born right in a variety of topics such as freedom of speech, religion and many more. While we are guaranteed these rights, they all have their own limitations that are not always stated as clearly as the right itself. These constitutional rights can also be commonly misinterpreted and leave people with different perceptions on what each one entail.

One of our constitutional rights that is misused is the second amendment, the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms has become a controversial right that while guaranteeing the ability to obtain firearms has also had limitations to who can possess such items and what type of arms are legal to have. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right guaranteed to Americans in the Constitution under the Bill of Rights. Although guaranteed by the second amendment the right to bear arms has limitations and restrictions. Limitations on this amendment include on who can legally possess a firearm. Many laws and regulations state that people who have been convicted of a at least a misdemeanor or of domestic violence do not have the ability to legally own a firearm. “Federal law prohibits the purchase and possession of firearms by people who fall within certain categories, such as convicted felons, domestic abusers, and people with specific kinds of mental health histories” (Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence). By placing this limitation to a constitutional law people who were once convicted no longer hold the second amendment right. The negative effect to this limitation is that if someone has changed their ways and rehabilitated their mind, they still cannot have that right back.

This limitation is a positive because those who have already been proven to cause harm on others and not obey the law are being kept away from harmful weapons. With limitations the government is trying to make sure that people who are legally able to have a firearm are mentally cable to make sound and rational decisions when using for recreational purpose or in states that have the “stand your ground law” like in California.

The constitutional rights to bear arms is limited because it dictates what citizens can possess, such as the amount of ammunition you can carry or the type of weapon you can own. These two things can have negative and positive ways that this limits our right. The positive ways can be that a person who illegally picks up one of these things cannot do so much damage. The negative way is that it takes away from people who are pro-gun or collectors of weapons to possess these items for recreational purposes. Limiting the type of weapons that can be legally purchased also makes sure that high power weapons such as machine guns are less likely to be placed in the hands of someone who can cause great damage. These guns are reserved for people such as our military or law enforcement. By regulating what type of weapons that can be possessed and the amount of ammunition the limitations placed on our constitutional right are modified to help regulated what is legally allowed within our country.

While we are afforded many basic rights granted to us with the Bill of Rights, there are still limitations placed on each one that have both negatives and positives that affect us. The second amendment which contains our right to bear arms allows us to have firearms in our procession. The government places limitations such as who can possess these types of guns, the type of weapons is legal and how many rounds they can each hold the right is still there for the people to be able to use. Rights are granted to us and while they hold limitation law abiding citizens can utilize them.

This essay was completed for a major grade in my online Communication Law class at Mississippi College.

Abstract

This essay cites and researches each of the first ten amendments. Each amendment will be stated verbatim and will be cited at the beginning of each part of the essay. I will then address each amendment and provide cited example cases. Each amendment two through ten (the Bill of Rights) will then be compared to the first amendment.

Amendments Comparison Essay

Amendment I

“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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (U.S. Const. amend. I)

Amendment II

“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.” (U.S. Const. amend. II)

Case Laws

District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

This case was between the District of Columbia and a D. C. special policeman, Heller. During this time the District of Columbia had strict licensing requirements for lawfully kept firearms. It was unlawful to carry unregistered firearms and they didn’t allow registration of handguns. They also required that all firearms be either trigger-locked or unassembled in the home. Heller went to court on the basis that these laws were unconstitutional to the Second Amendment because they violated the individual’s right to possess and bear firearms for self-defense.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York

In this case, the City has strict bans on transporting and carrying operable and inoperable firearms through and out of the city. The firearm license that the city issues only allows the resident to keep it at their home. They are not allowed to bear arms outside their homes for self-defense. The only exception to this law is that they may transport the firearm to and from one of the seven authorized small arms ranges or shooting clubs. This case involved Romolo Colantone, Efrain Alvarez, and Jose Anthony. They wanted to be able to transport their firearms from their homes to their other residents located out of the city, shooting tournaments located out of the city, and shooting ranges that are closer to their residents that are located out of city limits than the ones inside city limits. This case is the first Second Amendment case heard in almost a decade and is still pending today.

Constitutional Scholar

After the Court decision involving District of Columbia v. Heller Justice Antonin Scalia was placed with the responsibility of writing the majority opinion for the Heller Case. He states “The Second Amendment protects an individual 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.”

Duke Law School has created a new research center devoted to the study of issues about the Second Amendment, firearms laws, and gun rights. One of the Professors stated “There are not enough constitutional law scholars working on Second Amendment issues, an area where the impact of scholarship can be — and has been — profound,” said Blocher, the Lanty L. Smith ’67 Professor of Law. Both Miller and Blocher are currently highly accredited constitutional scholars who have both extensively researched and written about the Second Amendment and several other gun-related rights. They are both working on The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller which was later published by the Cambridge University Press. They hope that this research and scholarship helps clarify the Second Amendment and anything surrounding it.

Comparison

The Second Amendment protects the United States citizens’ rights to a free militia and the right to bear arms. This amendment helps citizens protect the First Amendment by allowing for self-defense from any government that wants to take away constitutional rights. The First and the Second Amendments help the people keep in control of the government instead of the government in control of the people. This is how the Constitution works to keep everything in balance.

Amendment I

“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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (U.S. Const. amend. I)

Amendment III

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.”

Case Laws

Engblom v. Carey

This case is about a riot that took place in Warwick, New York. During a sitewide correctional facility strike the National Guard was called in to the Mid-Orange Correctional Facility. While there two correction officers brought this action contending that they were removed from their residences without warning or notice so that members of the National Guard could reside in their homes. They stated that this violated their Third Amendment rights that no soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the homeowner. From what I gather about this case it was at first decided that the national guardsmen did not violate their Third Amendment right however it was later decided that they did.

Constitutional Scholar

T “Scotch” Reynolds is one of very few who practices the Third Amendment Law. He was questioned about how the third amendment could be applied. He stated, “Hypothetically, let’s say the military decides that its soldiers and armed personnel need to stay in your house, at no cost to the government. The Third Amendment prohibits that from happening unless we are in a time of war.”

The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History

The need for the third amendment originated during the Revolutionary War when British soldiers would come and take over someone’s home without warning or notice so that they would have housing during the war. Since then cases of this happening have been far and few between as said in this scholarly article.

“For almost two hundred years, now, it has gone virtually unnoticed. No Supreme Court case has ever directly interpreted the amendment, although several opinions, most notably the case of Griswold V. Connecticut, mention it in passing as one aspect of the right to privacy.” (Fields, W., & Hardy, D., 1991)

According to Gordon S. Wood (Alva O. Way University Professor and Professor of History Emeritus at Brown University), the Third Amendment may even have application in some modern-day situations “Some legal scholars have even begun to argue that the amendment might be applied to the government’s response to terror attacks and natural disasters, and issues involving eminent domain and the militarization of the police.” These types of situations are sadly very common and it is during these times we do deploy troops out to help handle and clean up after such crises.

Comparison

The third amendment tends to protect domestic privacy and property from an overpowering government. This right helps the civilians have a chance of keeping some form of control over the armed forces just as the First Amendment allows for citizens to keep some form of control over the government. The First Amendment protects this by giving citizens the right to peacefully protest and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

References

1. U.S. Const. amend. I.
2. U.S. Const. amend. II.
3. U.S. Const. amend. III.
4. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. (2008, June 26). Retrieved January 25, 2020, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
5. On this day, a divided Supreme Court rules on the Second Amendment. (2019, June 28). Retrieved January 25, 2020, from https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-a-divided-supreme-court-rules-on-the-second-amendment
6. Canzoneri, J., & Slotkin, B. A. (2019, November 26). New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York. Retrieved January 25, 2020, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/18-280
7. Second Amendment scholars Blocher and Miller co-direct the new Duke Center for Firearms Law. (2019, February 12). Retrieved January 25, 2020, from https://law.duke.edu/news/second-amendment-scholars-blocher-and-miller-co-direct-new-duke-center-firearms-law/
8. Linder, D. (n.d.). Retrieved January 25, 2020, from http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/engblom.html
9. Meet a lawyer who practices Third Amendment law. (2011, February 24). Retrieved January 25, 2020, from https://lawafterthebar.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/meet-a-lawyer-who-practices-third-amendment-law/
10. Fields, W., & Hardy, D. (1991). The Third Amendment and the Issue of the Maintenance of Standing Armies: A Legal History. The American Journal of Legal History, 35(4), 393-431. doi:10.2307/845653
11. The Third Amendment. (n.d.). Retrieved January 25, 2020, from https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-iii/interps/123

If we compare gun laws in the U.S. with other countries, we see that in the U.S. it’s not that hard to get a gun and carry it around in public. The government is not allowed to completely regulate guns because of the 2nd Amendment. However, the right is not unlimited. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld some firearms restrictions, such as bans on concealed weapons and on the possession of certain types of weapons, as well as prohibitions against the sale of guns to certain categories of people. The Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits individuals under eighteen years of age, convicted criminals, the mentally disabled, dishonorably discharged military personnel, and others from purchasing firearms. In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act mandated background checks for all unlicensed individuals purchasing a firearm from a federally authorized dealer. In another way, they could make restrictive laws about guns. If the U.S. Government wants to low gun violence like other countries they have to pass restrictive gun laws in all states.

First, the U.S. can’t really ban all guns for several reasons. One of the reasons as I mentioned before is the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd 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.” This made people confused because at the end it says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” this means that anyone can own a gun. But once we read it from the beginning it says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” First, let’s explain a Militia. According to the Oxford dictionary a Militia is a group of people who are not professional soldiers but who have had military training and can act as an army. This means that only a Militia can own guns. So the 2nd Amendment doesn’t make clear to own guns. Now during this era, there is no Milita so the constitution is sticking to the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. The other reason is that the cultural and the mindset of Americans for loving guns and keeping guns to protect themselves from anything.

According to Small Arms Survey, there are 120.5 guns per 100 people in the United States. That makes it number one before Yemen (52.8 guns per 100 people). These numbers make Americans nearly own half (46%) of the estimated 857 million civilian-owned guns worldwide. Americans own the most guns per person in the world, about four in 10 saying they either own a gun or live in a home with guns, according to a 2017 Pew Center study. Forty-eight percent of Americans said they grew up in a house with guns. Seventy-two percent of Americans said they have shot a gun. According to the survey, a majority (66 percent) of US gun owners own multiple firearms, with nearly three-quarters of gun owners saying they couldn’t imagine not owning one.

Almost half of the guns around the world are owned by Americans, therefore there are lots of guns in this country, which means they will be lots of Gun violence. Let me first talk about Mass shootings. The FBI identifies mass shootings as four or more people killed or injured in a single location. According to Giffords.org, there is an average of one mass shooting every day. In 2018, student’s risk of dying in a school shooting reached the highest level in at least 25 years. 60% of teens were scared that they will be a school shooting in their school. All that but mass shootings still comprise a small fraction of all gun violence, with estimates showing that such violence constitutes less than 1% of all gun deaths.

According to GunArchive.org, there are 100 Americans die every day. That number is from gun suicide, homicide, law enforcement shooting, unintentional shooting, and undetermined. I’ll focus on gun suicide and, homicide more. The reason for that is because gun suicides are actually higher than gun homicide.

Talking about gun homicide first because the numbers are lower than gun suicide which was a shock to me because I actually thought it’s the other way around. The reason why there is still high numbers of gun homicide is that they are able to access a gun. According to everytownreserch.org, there is an average of 12,830 dies because of homicide. According to the same website, Black Americans represent the majority of gun homicide victims. In fact, Black Americans are 10 times more likely than white Americans to die by gun homicide.

Gun suicide, that its numbers have shocked me. According to everytownreserch.org almost 2 of 3 gun death is by gun Suicide. Access to a gun increase the number of people to suicide. According to a video by Vox titled the state of gun violence, when a person commits suicide with anything other than a gun, the majority of them survive. Guns make it impossible for them to have a second chance. According to everytownreserch.org there is an average of 22,274 people suicide yearly. This more than half of the people who die from gun violence in general. White men represent 74 percent of firearm suicide victims in America.

The law in the U.S. allows anyone to own a gun. All states have their own laws on how to hard is it and easy is it to get a gun. For example, Alaska, if you have a gun there you could walk with it anywhere like state park and even in a restaurant. Since Alaska has the weakest gun laws in the country they have the highest gun deaths. Compare this with California laws, Requires all gun sales to be processed through a licensed dealer, requiring a background check. Requires gun dealers to obtain a state license. Bans most assault weapons. And the gun death rate in Calfornia is low.

The public poll about more gun laws spikes after every mass shooting. According to a poll by NPR, Majorities of Americans support bans on high-capacity ammunition magazines and assault-style weapons, but there are breaks between the parties, men, and women, where people live and whether they own a gun. While Democrats and independents want Congress to pass them, Republicans do not. Men and women also divide, 72% of women are in favor of banning assault-style weapons, while 55% of men are against it. Americans say it’s more important to control gun violence (55% to 39%). The majority of Americans aren’t favored of guns yet, the gun laws are not strong.

Comparing the U.S. gun laws with other high-income countries we see that the U.S. laws are not that strong. Federal law provides the basis for firearm regulation in the United States, but states and cities can make further restrictions. Some states, like Idaho, Alaska, and Kansas, have passed various laws attempting to nullify federal gun legislation. As of 2019, there were no federal laws banning semiautomatic assault weapons, military-style .50 caliber rifles, handguns, or large-capacity magazines. There was a federal prohibition on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines between 1994 and 2004, but Congress allowed these restrictions to expire. In Canda, Firearms are divided into three classes: nonrestricted weapons, such as ordinary rifles and shotguns; restricted, such as handguns and semiautomatic rifles or shotguns; and prohibited, such as automatic weapons. It is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon unless it was registered before 1978. In Australia, The National Agreement on Firearms all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, mandated licensing and registration, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons (about one-sixth of the national stock) out of public circulation. Among other things, the law also required licensees to demonstrate a “genuine need” for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety course. After another high-profile shooting, in Melbourne in 2002, Australia’s handgun laws were tightened as well. The U.K. introduced the Firearms (Amendment) Act, which expanded the list of banned weapons, including certain semiautomatic rifles, and increased registration requirements for other weapons. Gun control had rarely been much of a political issue in Norway—where gun laws are viewed as tough, but ownership rates are high. Norway includes requiring applicants to be at least eighteen years of age, specify a “valid reason” for gun ownership, and obtain a government license—are ineffective. “Those who are willing to break the laws against murder do not care about the regulation of firearms and will get a hold of weapons whether doing so is legal or not. In Japan, the only guns permitted are shotguns, air guns, guns with specific research or industrial purposes, or those used for competitions. However, before access to these specialty weapons is granted, one must obtain formal instruction and pass a battery of written, mental, and drug tests and a rigorous background check. Furthermore, owners must inform the authorities of how their weapons and ammunition are stored and provide their firearms for annual inspection. All these countries make it hard for people to get guns.

Few topics provide more polarising opinions and heated debates than the topic of gun control in the USA. Established in December 1791, 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’. For most of the republics relatively brief history (1791 onwards), US citizens have had the right and ability to purchase guns freely, compared to most other first world countries. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the US population from tyrannical governments and street thugs. It must be remembered that the former British colony only had been independent from their past overlords for just over 12 years, and the fear of being enslaved and exploited by a corrupt organisation was rife among the American populace. This right to bear arms may have been essential in the 18th century colonial world, where Americas power was dwarfed by major colonial powers such as the British and French empires, however the modern globalist world (Where Americas military and economic power seems unchecked) may make this amendment redundant.

Recent atrocities, such as: Sandy Hook (27 killed), Virginia Tech (32 killed) and The Harvest Music Festival (58 killed), has brought a wave of outraged people suggesting a reform of the Second Amendment is long overdue. The predominantly Democratic left takes the stance that the Second Amendment is outdated, and either all guns should be banned, higher calibre and semi-automatic guns should be banned, or more rigorous background checks should be imposed so that guns are not given into the hands of potential mass shooters. However, the Mainly Republican right, blames the mental health of shooters for these massacres and the actions of a few psychopaths should not restrict law abiding citizens from their right to bear arms. The one thing all Americans can agree on Is that somehow, the seemingly regular massacres of innocents must be stopped.

The US is home to the most mass shootings in the world. America’s uncommon gun culture has resulted in a country where more of the nation’s population are killed by fellow citizens with guns than in any other high-income nation in the entire world. ‘Americans own 42% of the estimated 650 million civilian owned guns worldwide, according to the Congressional Research service 2012’. The distinct correlation between America owning the most civilian guns, whilst also experiencing the most mass shooting in the world, surely shows the US government must act somehow. Whether its tightening on gun control, banning guns or tackling mental health problems, something must be done to contain this epidemic.

The recent appointment of the right-wing, Republican, president Donald Trump, seems to suggest that Second Amendment will not be tampered with for the foreseeable future. Does the Second Amendment protect the US population from the potential of a tyrannical government wishing to enslave them or will it simply provide mass murders with the tools to commit atrocities.

Banning Guns Would Save Lives And Stop Mass Shootings

Prospect Magazine suggests that America needs to ‘grow up and ban guns’ as ‘an adult, civilised society does not consider it necessary for a private citizen to own an assault rifle’. The article uses the example of the Las Vegas mass shooting where just a single man ‘opened fire from a hotel window into a vast crowd of concert-goers, killing over 50 and injuring more than 400’. Straight away this fact shows the absolute carnage guns can inflict upon innocent civilians. The fact that only one man could endanger the life of hundreds of people in the space of minutes is a terrifying prospect. The gunman, Stephen Paddock (A local 64-year-old man) had over 10 rifles in his possession. To think that a civilian needs more than ten rifles just for himself is ludicrous. The Second Amendment states that ‘right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’, however the whole point of the Second Amendment is to protect the American people from danger. How can allowing one man to own more than 10 rifles for personal be safe? Many US citizens have arsenals which could adequately equip a small army. Surely, it would be beneficial if the government placed a restriction on the number of guns one person can own.

Personally, I don’t feel as strongly against the right to bear arms as the source does, since I believe in the American citizens rights to bear arms. Although, the fact brought up about the large collection of weaponry some people own, concerns me and seems totally unnecessary. Personally, I suggest that the US government should introduce restrictions in the number of guns the average American can own. There is absolutely no recreational purpose or need for anyone except a licensed guns sales man to own over 3 guns. The facts provided by the magazine show that Mr Paddock owned all his guns legally. This fact alone shows that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect the safety of the American populace as a man was legally allowed to acquire a more than abundant arsenal which can cause the worst atrocity in US history. He is proof of the fact the government can’t be certain that someone will not use guns illegally and to cause harm to innocents. Paddock was licensed to own guns, showed no signs of mental illness and was a responsible gun owner. Paddock most likely could have committed the atrocity if he was restricted to buying only a few guns, but he would never of been able to inflict as much damage if he had less weapons.

Guns Do Not Mean Protection

The Telegraph states that ‘If more guns really made you safer, America would be one of the safest places in the world’. This point is very valid, since the whole objective of the Second Amendment is to protect the people and to empower them so that they don’t have to live their lives feeling intimidated or controlled. Yet it seems like every other week an atrocity occurs in America. The counter argument that guns can be used to stop the perpetrators is redundant to me. When you look into the accounts and reports of these horrific events, it’s almost always the case that the police or special services stop the shooters. The very thought of untrained civilians rushing into a war-zone like area is chaotic. The last thing we need in a modern democratic nation is vigilantes shooting at criminals. Personally, I believe we should leave this duty to the professionals so that less lives are endangered, and the chance of rescuing innocents is higher. An untrained person with a gun attempting to stop a shooter endangers the lives of the innocents. Also, the article states that ‘seven children or teenagers are shot dead on average every day’. Anyone being harmed is reason enough to take action against the loosely restrictive gun laws, however the fact that 7 innocent children/teenagers are shot per day is a nightmare scenario for any decent human being, let alone a parent. Parents now feel scared to let their children go to school in case of a school shooting occurs. Children should never be in danger whilst at school. School is a place of learning and education, where safety of the children is essential. Its true that it takes a monster to commit a school shooting, however there are thousands of psychopaths in society who will commit school shootings. Since 2009 there has been 288 school shootings in the USA. The entire G7 (the countries with the largest advanced economies in the world) has had 57 times less school shootings. Since 2009: Canada has had 2 school shootings, France 2, Germany 1 and Japan, Italy and the UK have had 0. All these countries are very similar in all aspects of society and law. Except one country who doesn’t have restrictive and strict gun laws. Can you guess which country? This clearly shows that there’s a clear link between free gun laws and school shootings. To me this signifies that the Second Amendment must be altered and become more restrictive.

Gun Control and Reduce the Number of Suicides

Huffpost, writes ‘gun suicides account for nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths, a percentage that has been steadily climbing each year’. You could argue that these people are mentally ill and even without access to a gun they will just use alternative methods of suicide. However, this is not the case. Most people think that suicide through a self-inflicted gun wound is the most painless and quickest form of suicide. If these mentally ill people did not have access to a gun, suicide rates would fall since it would become harder for people to kill themselves, and people would fear using other methods of suicide (e.g. overdose) through fear of it not being successful or even painful. The NRA refuses to admit that suicide has a correlation with gun violence. ‘Suicide is never mentioned in the phony safety campaigns’, thus showing that the US Government doesn’t even acknowledge the vast effect, that free access to guns in America has on the suicide rate. This oblivious attitude to facts among the avid Second Amendment supporters, who claim facts like this is simply ‘fake news’ is the reason why the gun problem in America is so gigantic. How is it possible, that mentally ill people can acquire guns? This is a recipe for disaster. Its no coincidence that that gun suicide rates are lower in North-eastern states, where gun laws are more restrictive. Obviously, an increase in treatment for mental health would be the best solution to prevent these suicides, however, it would also be beneficial if the access to guns were restricted for mentally ill people. I believe that someone who wants to purchase a gun must pass background and mental health checks. Massachusetts has the lowest rate of gun violence of all states, but it’s also known as a state with strong gun control laws.

The Second Amendment Is Outdated

We have to remember that the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791. Now we live in the 21st century, it should be about time that adjust these old laws to the modern climate. The 2nd Amendment and the ‘Right to bear arms’ was only introduced to prevent others from entering private land and committing crime when the law was not so established across the vast planes of America as it is today since it was only a new fledgling post-colonial state. ‘In 2008, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were…roughly 251 police per 100,000 residents’. So surely this amendment is no longer necessary. If a criminal wanted a weapon and guns were illegal, they could simply just buy one off a criminal associate. Surely? However, if such weapons were banned, motivation will fall as the potential criminal would have to go through many black and illegal markets, which are maybe unreachable due to their lack of contacts. Why does anyone need a semi automatic weapon to kill an intruder? Isn’t a small calibre pistol enough? In summary, the idea of needing to possess a gun, is an outdated concept. We no longer live in the 18th century, so maybe Americans should stop living as people who lived in the 18th century and adjust the Second Amendment to 21st century life.

You Don’t Solve Problems By Adding to The Problems

You don’t try to add to a problem in order to solve it. For example, you don’t throw more petrol onto a fire to try and stop a fire. Guns are responsible for over 31,000 deaths in America. In Britain, due to highly restrictive gun laws, there are only a mere 35 people killed each year from guns. Also, the 2nd Amendment applies to militias, not civilians. According to the Week Magazine, studies show that there are more cases in which people are killed by guns than saved by civilians with guns. More studies support that when you have more restrictive and tight gun regulations that there will be lower rates crime. For example, in Hawaii, there are 16 laws against guns. There, there are less than 3 per 100,000 gun death a year. It is very easy to gain access to a firearm that could potentially cause a shooting. If you allow a mentally conflicted person to own a firearm, as seen in various mass US shootings, they can easily cause mass damage to innocent civilians. If that mentally unstable person didn’t have access to a firearm, then that mass shooting wouldn’t have taken place. More studies, according to Time Magazine, say that it would take more intense training than a police officer to take down a killer with a gun in a public area. Therefore, the idea of possessing a firearm is dangerous since more than likely it will result in civilians being caught in the crossfire. I think we can all agree its best to leave stopping shooters to the trained and experienced professionals.

If Guns Are Banned Wont Criminals Just Use Other Weapons

Basically every from of handgun is banned fin the UK, due to the Second Firearms Act of 1997. This tight control on handguns was a response to the tragic Dunblane Massacre (1996), where Thomas Hamilton (who was 43 years of age) walked into an Scottish primary school in the town of Dunblane and sadistically gunned 16 children to death before committing suicide. Since this massacre the rate of homicide in the UK (1996) was 1.12 per 100,000. It was 1.24 in 1997, when the Firearms Act was introduced, and 1.43 in 1998. The law seems to have not effected the rates of homicides, thus suggesting if the US abolished the Second Amendment and restricted the supply of guns, people would just use other forms of weaponry to commit crimes. Personally I don’t believe the rise in homicides is due to people not having guns to defend themselves, but it shows that banning guns does not reduce the rate of crimes. Also, it is to be noted that there has not been one school shooting since the Dunblane massacre but, in recent years there has been a sharp rise in stabbing and knife crime. ‘There were 40,147 offences in the 12 months ending in March 2018’. This suggests that if guns were to be banned in America, criminals would just use other weapons and it wouldn’t be an effective way to combat murder and homicide rates.

Criminals Don’t Follow Rules

The main thing any pro-second amendment activist will tell you is that even if guns were banned, ‘Americans own 42% of the estimated 650 million civilian owned guns worldwide, according to the Congressional Research service 2012’, and it would be imposable to make everyone hand over their guns . The purpose of gun laws are to ensure the states populace is protected by limiting their access to guns. Most criminals have no sense of moral obligation to abide the law. If guns were permanently banned, its very probable that criminals wouldn’t hand over their guns and ‘good’ law abiding citizens will have no weapons and the criminals will. This surely puts the average person at severe risk and this would most certainly lead to an exponential rise in gun crime. From this view, it seems that the already organised US society cannot risk enacting reforms to the Second Amendment as it could have catastrophic effects. As of 2010, the sale of guns became illegal within the city US of Chicago. The city’s murder count totalled 374 people in 2013. The ‘Murder capital’ of the US didn’t reduce its crime rate with stricter gun control, thus it seems illogical to enforce stricter gun control across the US.

Ability To Enforce Gun Restriction

There has never been a record of gun owners in the US. Thus to know who owns a firearm is extremely difficult. Estimates state that approximately 270 million weapons are owned in the US. This is approximately 89 firearms per 100 people, the most heavily armed citizens in the world. Its constitutionally, morally and physically imposable to go knocking from house to house asking every single American citizen to hand over their firearms. Gun owners would retaliate, riot or simply just hide their weapons. The very thought of banning firearms has immense repercussions, even potentially fracturing the union of states and potentially causing a second civil war. To be brutally honest, it is now too late for America to simply ban guns completely as their are too many firearms in circulation. To ban guns, it would take a long period of time and could only be achieved by gradual tightening of the Second Amendment.