Print. In his piece “A Well-Regulated Militia” Paul Fussell discusses the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms. Fussell expresses his opinions of the National Rifle Association of America’s interpretation of the Second Amendment and their lack of acknowledging the entire amendment. Fussell informs readers that on the right panel of the NRA’s entrance it reads, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Fussell also informs that the left panel does not state the first half of the quotation which states, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” Fussell declares that by leaving out the first half of the quotation that “The NRA doesn’t want to remind anyone of the crucial dependent clause of the Second Amendment, who’s latter half alone it is so fond of invoking to urge its prerogatives”(146). He offers that the NRA is not willing to accept the Second Amendment in its entirety and what is was meant for.
The Second Amendment interpretation is flawed by In Molly Ivins's article, "Ban the Things. Ban Them All." She supports the Second Amendment, and she points out the main objective of signing this document is the authorization of a group of individuals that's trained to carry fire arms, even though they are not part of government. They may carry arms for security purposes in order to maintain a free state, and that this group of individuals have the right to keep and carry arms. The authors' main argument, is against individuals that are not trained to carry arms, nor do these individual carry arms to maintain a free state.
When people don’t have guns to protect themselves they could at least have the illusion of having a gun, but if you have gun control you could not have that safety. If there were a test or survey you should take to see if you would be responsible enough to own a gun would be a good idea to make it not as hard for the good people to buy guns. It is a good idea to have people that are smart gun owners than having dumb ones. More people are buying guns for self defense “more than 2.6 Billion dollars of firearms for self defense, 96 million background checks have been completed, and the number of licensed gun carriers has doubled. The result has been an 18% reduction of out nation’s aggravated assault plus robbery rate.” (Menkus) this shows people that the more good citizens you have with guns the safer it is for the rest of the people.
The Constitution written in 1787 was the first to declare Americans right to bear arms. The Constitution is comprised of three parts: the preamble, the articles, and the amendments. The Constitution’s second amendment reads as follows, “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.” (archives.gov) The Constitution was the document that limits the role of government and
The right to carry a concealed firearm is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. This right alone should be enough justification for the Legislative Branch of government to mandate all states to abide by this constitutional right of its citizens. The law enforcement within each state alone cannot guarantee the safety of its citizens. Responsible citizens should have the right to protect their families and the states should not impede on this right by not allowing concealed carry (O’Shea, 2012, p. 585). Recently in Wisconsin, there was a good news story displaying the necessity for concealed carry.
They should not be able to take away our rights that were given to us long ago. The people of the United States of America do not like the government trying to pass this law. People use guns for self-defense and hunting. People are standing up for their rights and showing the government that they can’t walk on us. This gun control is making ammunition prices raise.
They also carried weapons on them for protection against Indians or wildlife that lived all around them. There was also some thought about over-regulation weapons; however, to most people this in a breach in the 1st Amendment. From what I gathered I believe we should regulate more regularly. If we keep hounding people with tax and registration on weapons they will become tiresome and just want to give up their weapons and overall will lower the crime rate of accidents with weapons involved. The last dozen or so attacks have been involved with teenagers or young adults with medical issues, now if we had a more serious approach on issuing licenses to legitimate people I believe we can lower the crime rate with weapons in our
3. 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. 4. Carrying
The world as man-kind knows it will be a better place due to the fact that not having possession of a gun can leave people vulnerable to this world of violence. In 2011 close to 33,000 Americans were victims to gun-related deaths. This is a prime example on why people should purchase a gun to protect their households, and make a safe living for their family. Control what can be controlled, which someone is holding a person at gun point. What are they going to do wish that there was gun control?
It should just be requirement same requirements as an employer and most employers do drug testing. Why should not that be so of applying for assistance? Ellen Brandom, a Republican state representative in Missouri, state that American tax payer’s work had for their livings and it are not fair that their tax dollars go to support illegal activities.” (Service)This is an extremely valid point each and every person that works contributes their tax dollars. It should be put to proper use for people that need that extra help to feed themselves or their families. It has been proven that it does save the taxpayers money but, there are still groups that are fighting the implication of bills like this.