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.
Those who do not believe in the legalization of concealed carry stand firm in their opposition. We must stand firm in our support of the legalization of concealed carry in all states. Concealed carry of firearms can save lives and give individuals the ability to protect what is rightfully theirs. We must write our legislators encouraging their support to allow the concealed carry of a firearm and give back our Second Amendment right, the Right to Bear
There are definitely pros and cons for individual(s) being able to have a concealed weapon but in this case I am for people being able to carry a concealed weapon. Criminals are less likely to target a person if they know that person is armed. Second I don’t feel the government can 100 guarantees the safety of all of its citizens. Third reason why is criminals are going to carry a concealed weapon legal or not. So why shouldn’t law abiding citizens be able to do the same and be able to protect themselves.
“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.” The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the impression that gun control issues should be very black and white. Unfortunately this is not the case. There are too many standpoints to put a number on it. Ranging from absolutely no one should own a firearm, to citizens should be able to roam the streets with bazookas, and everything in between. There are many viewpoints for those who are in favor of gun control.
No matter what kind of gun control we have, criminals will always be able to obtain guns through the black market. It’s up to us to defend ourselves against these criminals. As United States citizens, the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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.” A well-regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state. The Second Amendment is about as clear as the First Amendment’s prohibiting Congress from infringing the right to freedom of speech, press, and religious expression. There is no logical
The anti-gun control groups consider that banning of guns or restricting individuals on the possession of guns as unconstitutional (Brown & Abel, 2003). The anti-gun control groups support the Second Amendment, which protects the rights of civilians from undergoing infringement for a safe state. Individuals can acquire, possess, and use their guns for their own personal safety. The Gun Owners of America (GOA) refers to a lobbyist group preserving and defending the Second Amendment (Brown & Abel, 2003). This lobbyist group considers the right to acquire and possess guns as a freedom issue among the civilians.
Of those 420,000 assault rifles only 40 murders with firearms were committed in the entire country. (Police Statistics on Crime Annual Report 2010). This suggests that a country’s almost non existent gun restriction has no influence over murders by assault rifles. Also with the knowledge that most every house and apartment has an assault rifle in the house, it would make a thief or any wrong doer think twice about robbing or harming anyone inside the
There are 43 states or 86% of states that include some form of the second amendment in their own Constitutions. The Arizona state Constitution reads as follows, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.” This clearly states that citizens have their right to bear arms as defense of themselves, family, and property and that this article should not be changed (hematite.com). Other than guns being a political right, personal reasons are also another reason American citizens should have the right to bear arms. Owning guns in the household can be a great family activity (pbs.org). Guns can be used as a tool to teach young kids responsibility.
An Argument For Gun Rights Everyone should have the right to own a gun. Forget the little fact that the Second Amendment grants us the right to own a firearm for one second. Most of us can agree that a gun is a useful tool. After all, law enforcement and the military swear by theirs. It also doesn’t make sense to blame an inanimate object rather than the individual behind it and the reasons why gun violence occurs.
Summary of “Ban The Things. Ban Them All.” In the essay, “Ban The Things. Ban Them All,” written by Molly Ivins, she expresses concern about society’s ownership of guns, and how they have grown to be used more of a weapon for show, than for protection. Ivins also argues that the argument of “guns don’t kill people,” doesn’t exist, because she believes that they do, and that that may be all they ever do. Ivins states that she supports the Second Amendment: “A well–regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to bear arms shall not be infringed,”(437) and that adolescents in our society are NOT part of a well-regulated militia: “[there are] teenage drug dealers…cruising the cites of this nation perforating their fellow citizens with assault rifles” (437).