What Is The Second Amendment: A Threat To Civilized People?
The Second Amendment: A Threat to Civilized People?
Gun control has recently created a massive uproar throughout the United States because of the recent, and sincerely unfortunate, Sandy Hook school shooting that occurred last December. In response to this tragedy, Democratic leaders have been attempting to capitalize on the incident and push forward their respective agenda of limiting gun rights. As one can imagine, there are a surfeit of opinions on the subject, but despite this fact, I have come to affirm that I am strong believer in strengthening gun control. Although the right to bear arms should continue to be guaranteed by the Second Amendment, our nation’s need for heightened security in school classrooms and other public places is …show more content…
something that should no longer be ignored.
The Gun Problem: Why an Unlimited Right to Bear Arms is Bad
Since becoming a staple of American society, guns have been instrumental in altering contemporary warfare. The dangers of these weapons are not a secret; it is simply their mere nature. Some argue that guns were created to protect, while others suggest that they were built to destroy and cause the death of one’s intended target. Frank Zimring, a University of Chicago Law scholar, stated in his piece The University of Chicago Law Review, “The rate of knife deaths per 100 reported knife attacks was less than 1/5 the rate of gun deaths per 100 reported gun attacks” (Zimring 722). This statistic expresses the sincere lethality of guns compared to other forms of weaponry. One of the main reasons for this data stems from the misuse of guns, which unlike other weapons, can cause death to the user and those around him or her even on accident. If this unfortunate probability can be decreased, how can we stand around as the leader of the free world and let nothing be done?
In the American political system, gun control has been a debate for many years; however, recent shootings have forced it into a large spotlight.
The problem that splits gun control proponents from their opposition is the language of the second amendment of the constitution. The founding fathers of this nation believed that, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (U.S. Constitution). This multifaceted sentence from the Bill of Rights brings many quarrels to life with its simple diction. It is very open to interpretation, which is what causes both sides of the debate to have “legal stances” on the matter. The National Rifle Association (NRA), which is the nation’s largest gun advocacy organization, is led by the philosophy that it, “[hosts] a wide range of firearms-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans.” What gun advocates in the NRA often fail to understand, however, is the conscionable limits to the Second Amendment. As 27-year serving Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia stated in the majority opinion of the District of Columbia V. Heller decision, “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” (Scalia). This lead Scalia to also state that, “it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” These sanctions are legal proof that the second amendment allows for the government to regulate the distribution, ownership, and use of weapons. On top of that, Scalia, regarded as the most conservative justice, clearly highlights that gun control is useful and at times
necessary.
Legislation is Necessary to Reduce Gun Violence
Past and present governmental action of this nation proves that the danger that arises from the use of guns is so high that it values the general security of citizens higher than the individual rights of gun owners. The proof of this higher need for security is presented in the 1993 Brady Laws, 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (also known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban), and the more recent gun control proposal presented by President Barack Obama. Obviously, the total eradication of guns is extreme and unrealistic. What American political leaders can do, however, is implement stronger laws and regulations to decrease the supply, access to, and lethality of the weapons available to the general public. This would help to decrease gun deaths, gun violence, and raise national security.
Even a year before the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, the ever-important Brady Laws were enacted. These laws required a 5-day waiting period on all gun sales so that thorough background checks could be implemented. Also, whenever multiple handgun purchases were to occur, they were now allowed to be reported to the police. Those that were deemed mentally ill by the courts were not allowed to purchase weapons and American leaders emphasized that the Laws may have in fact prevented gun violence from spreading. According to Bob Adams, these legislative actions had extremely positive effects. The Gun Control Debate, Adams’ academic journal that was released after the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, highlights that, “deaths from firearms in the United States dropped sharply, from almost 40,000 in 1993 to 29,700 in 2002. And the number of licensed gun dealers dropped from 285,000 to 104,000 in three years.” Through statistical analysis of decreasing death rates from guns and decreasing gun supply after the implementation of the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban, Adams exposes the positive effect these laws and regulations had on the overall security of the nation. President Obama sees the need for the reinstatement of these regulations and has incorporated them into his gun control proposal.
Newtown School Shooting: It’s Time to Take Action against the NRA
On January 8th, 2013, the Newtown, Connecticut elementary school shooting occurred and took the lives of 27 students and teachers. This tragedy, at first, dropped jaws across the nation but immediately after caused an enormous social riot about gun control and the laws surrounding them. Shortly after the incident, President Obama made a statement on the matter and sent his condolences to those directly affected. He did not, however, let his stance on gun control be known. About one week later, Vice President Joe Biden came out at a press conference stating that, “something will be done about the gun violence,” indicating that the President had intentions to strengthen the gun control laws (Fox News). The important underlying information to be noted is Joe Biden’s political résumé. During the Clinton Presidential era, Biden was a very strong proponent and leading force of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban.
On January 15, 2013, White House press confirmed President Obama’s proposal to ban assault rifles, high-capacity gun magazines, and increase the rigor and efficiency of the background check system in an effort to “close loopholes [in the system],” a similar rhetoric to his stance on American capitalism (Adams 956). When presenting the outline of his plan, the President stated that, “we have to do what we think is best; we may have to come up with answers that are outside of politics and that’s what I expect congress to do” (Christopher 1). This powerful statement calls for methods outside of the political realm and yearns for more of a moral decision to be made. Obama’s proposal also includes increases in national safety through monetary incentives for schools, the confirmation of a director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (A.T.F.) by Congress, and the implementation of a national ad campaign on gun safety and regulation. In terms of weaponry, this proposal mirrors the gun ban of 1994 because it is just a reinstatement of the original ban packaged with an abundance of extra regulations. This executive branch action is a testament to how much wellness, safety, and security is a priority to this nation’s leaders.
There will be a Battle Ahead
The American political system is in an ever-prevalent struggle of finding the best balance between security and freedom, and gun control is a prime example of this paradox. No decision can ever be perfect in our government because it will leave one side distraught; however, there can be action taken to make the best, most encompassing decisions as possible. In terms of gun control, current security concerns posed by excessive guns and the ease of obtaining their power suggest that action must be taken immediately if we are to save the lives of others. With all of this in mind, one can see how the pro-gun control regime is legally, socially, and morally prepared to strengthen the laws and regulations on the use of, supply of, and civilian access to weaponry. This nation prides itself on its foundations of freedom, security, and the pursuit of happiness, as these constitute the reasons why people decide to live in this country and pursue their dream of success here. Yet guns consistently infringe on this base philosophy security and this is what makes them truly the plague of the American dream. Buy a research paper on gun control.
Works Cited
Adams, Bob. "Gun Control Debate." CQ Researcher 12 Nov. 2004: 949-72. Web. 29 Jan. 2013.
Christopher, Tommy. "President Obama Signals He Will Push Assault Weapons Ban." Mediaite President Obama Signals He Will Push Assault Weapons Ban Comments. Mediaite, 14 Jan. 2013. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.
District of Columbia v. Heller. No. 07-290. Supreme Ct. of the US. 26 June 2008.
Guns V. Constitution. Digital image. AZPlea. Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, 13 Apr. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2013.
"NRA Philosophy." National Rifile Association. NRA, 04 May 2002. Web. 08 Feb. 2013.
Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, H.R.3355, 103rd Congress (1993-1994), GPO. Retrieved January 26, 2013.
Pye, Jason. Assault Weapons. Digital image. United Liberty. N.p., 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.
Stirewalt, Chris. "Biden No Joke on Gun Control." Fox News. FOX News Network, 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Jan. 2013.
Zimring, Frank. The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Summer, 1968), pp. 721-737.
Gun control has recently created a massive uproar throughout the United States because of the recent, and sincerely unfortunate, Sandy Hook school shooting that occurred last December. In response to this tragedy, Democratic leaders have been attempting to capitalize on the incident and push forward their respective agenda of limiting gun rights. As one can imagine, there are a surfeit of opinions on the subject, but despite this fact, I have come to affirm that I am strong believer in strengthening gun control. Although the right to bear arms should continue to be guaranteed by the Second Amendment, our nation’s need for heightened security in school classrooms and other public places is …show more content…
something that should no longer be ignored.
The Gun Problem: Why an Unlimited Right to Bear Arms is Bad
Since becoming a staple of American society, guns have been instrumental in altering contemporary warfare. The dangers of these weapons are not a secret; it is simply their mere nature. Some argue that guns were created to protect, while others suggest that they were built to destroy and cause the death of one’s intended target. Frank Zimring, a University of Chicago Law scholar, stated in his piece The University of Chicago Law Review, “The rate of knife deaths per 100 reported knife attacks was less than 1/5 the rate of gun deaths per 100 reported gun attacks” (Zimring 722). This statistic expresses the sincere lethality of guns compared to other forms of weaponry. One of the main reasons for this data stems from the misuse of guns, which unlike other weapons, can cause death to the user and those around him or her even on accident. If this unfortunate probability can be decreased, how can we stand around as the leader of the free world and let nothing be done?
In the American political system, gun control has been a debate for many years; however, recent shootings have forced it into a large spotlight.
The problem that splits gun control proponents from their opposition is the language of the second amendment of the constitution. The founding fathers of this nation believed that, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (U.S. Constitution). This multifaceted sentence from the Bill of Rights brings many quarrels to life with its simple diction. It is very open to interpretation, which is what causes both sides of the debate to have “legal stances” on the matter. The National Rifle Association (NRA), which is the nation’s largest gun advocacy organization, is led by the philosophy that it, “[hosts] a wide range of firearms-related public interest activities of the National Rifle Association of America and other organizations that defend and foster the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans.” What gun advocates in the NRA often fail to understand, however, is the conscionable limits to the Second Amendment. As 27-year serving Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia stated in the majority opinion of the District of Columbia V. Heller decision, “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” (Scalia). This lead Scalia to also state that, “it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” These sanctions are legal proof that the second amendment allows for the government to regulate the distribution, ownership, and use of weapons. On top of that, Scalia, regarded as the most conservative justice, clearly highlights that gun control is useful and at times
necessary.
Legislation is Necessary to Reduce Gun Violence
Past and present governmental action of this nation proves that the danger that arises from the use of guns is so high that it values the general security of citizens higher than the individual rights of gun owners. The proof of this higher need for security is presented in the 1993 Brady Laws, 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act (also known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban), and the more recent gun control proposal presented by President Barack Obama. Obviously, the total eradication of guns is extreme and unrealistic. What American political leaders can do, however, is implement stronger laws and regulations to decrease the supply, access to, and lethality of the weapons available to the general public. This would help to decrease gun deaths, gun violence, and raise national security.
Even a year before the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect, the ever-important Brady Laws were enacted. These laws required a 5-day waiting period on all gun sales so that thorough background checks could be implemented. Also, whenever multiple handgun purchases were to occur, they were now allowed to be reported to the police. Those that were deemed mentally ill by the courts were not allowed to purchase weapons and American leaders emphasized that the Laws may have in fact prevented gun violence from spreading. According to Bob Adams, these legislative actions had extremely positive effects. The Gun Control Debate, Adams’ academic journal that was released after the expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban in 2004, highlights that, “deaths from firearms in the United States dropped sharply, from almost 40,000 in 1993 to 29,700 in 2002. And the number of licensed gun dealers dropped from 285,000 to 104,000 in three years.” Through statistical analysis of decreasing death rates from guns and decreasing gun supply after the implementation of the Brady Law and the Assault Weapons Ban, Adams exposes the positive effect these laws and regulations had on the overall security of the nation. President Obama sees the need for the reinstatement of these regulations and has incorporated them into his gun control proposal.
Newtown School Shooting: It’s Time to Take Action against the NRA
On January 8th, 2013, the Newtown, Connecticut elementary school shooting occurred and took the lives of 27 students and teachers. This tragedy, at first, dropped jaws across the nation but immediately after caused an enormous social riot about gun control and the laws surrounding them. Shortly after the incident, President Obama made a statement on the matter and sent his condolences to those directly affected. He did not, however, let his stance on gun control be known. About one week later, Vice President Joe Biden came out at a press conference stating that, “something will be done about the gun violence,” indicating that the President had intentions to strengthen the gun control laws (Fox News). The important underlying information to be noted is Joe Biden’s political résumé. During the Clinton Presidential era, Biden was a very strong proponent and leading force of the 1994 Assault Weapons ban.
On January 15, 2013, White House press confirmed President Obama’s proposal to ban assault rifles, high-capacity gun magazines, and increase the rigor and efficiency of the background check system in an effort to “close loopholes [in the system],” a similar rhetoric to his stance on American capitalism (Adams 956). When presenting the outline of his plan, the President stated that, “we have to do what we think is best; we may have to come up with answers that are outside of politics and that’s what I expect congress to do” (Christopher 1). This powerful statement calls for methods outside of the political realm and yearns for more of a moral decision to be made. Obama’s proposal also includes increases in national safety through monetary incentives for schools, the confirmation of a director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (A.T.F.) by Congress, and the implementation of a national ad campaign on gun safety and regulation. In terms of weaponry, this proposal mirrors the gun ban of 1994 because it is just a reinstatement of the original ban packaged with an abundance of extra regulations. This executive branch action is a testament to how much wellness, safety, and security is a priority to this nation’s leaders.
There will be a Battle Ahead
The American political system is in an ever-prevalent struggle of finding the best balance between security and freedom, and gun control is a prime example of this paradox. No decision can ever be perfect in our government because it will leave one side distraught; however, there can be action taken to make the best, most encompassing decisions as possible. In terms of gun control, current security concerns posed by excessive guns and the ease of obtaining their power suggest that action must be taken immediately if we are to save the lives of others. With all of this in mind, one can see how the pro-gun control regime is legally, socially, and morally prepared to strengthen the laws and regulations on the use of, supply of, and civilian access to weaponry. This nation prides itself on its foundations of freedom, security, and the pursuit of happiness, as these constitute the reasons why people decide to live in this country and pursue their dream of success here. Yet guns consistently infringe on this base philosophy security and this is what makes them truly the plague of the American dream. Buy a research paper on gun control.
Works Cited
Adams, Bob. "Gun Control Debate." CQ Researcher 12 Nov. 2004: 949-72. Web. 29 Jan. 2013.
Christopher, Tommy. "President Obama Signals He Will Push Assault Weapons Ban." Mediaite President Obama Signals He Will Push Assault Weapons Ban Comments. Mediaite, 14 Jan. 2013. Web. 25 Feb. 2013.
District of Columbia v. Heller. No. 07-290. Supreme Ct. of the US. 26 June 2008.
Guns V. Constitution. Digital image. AZPlea. Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, 13 Apr. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2013.
"NRA Philosophy." National Rifile Association. NRA, 04 May 2002. Web. 08 Feb. 2013.
Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, H.R.3355, 103rd Congress (1993-1994), GPO. Retrieved January 26, 2013.
Pye, Jason. Assault Weapons. Digital image. United Liberty. N.p., 31 Jan. 2013. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.
Stirewalt, Chris. "Biden No Joke on Gun Control." Fox News. FOX News Network, 19 Dec. 2012. Web. 10 Jan. 2013.
Zimring, Frank. The University of Chicago Law Review, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Summer, 1968), pp. 721-737.