Repression Of The 2nd Amendment

Decent Essays
The Constitution: Suppression of the 2nd 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 infringed.” This is the 2nd amendment, and it is under attack. Many people believe that guns are evil and need to banned from the general public. They look at countries such as Australia, Japan, and France to get there reasoning for strict gun control. Advocates for this type of thinking conclude that if America implements the same harsh gun regulations of other countries, then our gun violence rates will reflect theirs. It makes sense, if it works there, then why wouldn’t it work here? The answer to this question is simple, they are not America. The Constitution
…show more content…
Immediately after being ratified, changes to the Constitution were made. The 1st amendment assured the people that their most basic rights could not be taken. The 2nd amendment guaranteed that the people would be able to own and keep their firearms. If the founding fathers thought this was second only to free speech, they must have thought that it was pretty important. George Mason, co-author of the 2nd amendment said that “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” If a governing body is able to take away the guns of its people, there is nothing that the people can do to stop the government from taking over. Whereas, if the people are armed with the same type of weapons as the government, it would be a lot harder for the government to take over. The key phrase being, “same type of weapons.” The main weapon referred to are the AR-15s. Since they are military style weapons, a lot of people think they should not be legal for private ownership. There was a temporary ban on AR-15s, as well as many other military style weapons, including high-capacity magazines (chambers or belts that are able to feed more than 10 rounds of ammunition into a firearm), but guns and …show more content…
Before the 1994 assault weapons ban there was no such thing as an assault shotgun or assault pistol. The law essentially did the same thing pistols as it did for rifles. Pre ban there were machine pistols, but they were already highly restricted. The ban just changed the name to assault pistols and broadened the definition to include semi-automatics with two or more of the following features that also accept detachable magazines: threaded barrel, barrel shroud, an unloaded weight of 50oz, a semi-automatic version of fully automatic pistol, or a magazine that isn’t inserted through the grip. These features just don’t make any sense. Sure the threaded barrel and barrel shroud goes along with the rifle, but what does it matter if it weighs more than 50oz? And who cares if the magazine attaches outside the grip-handle? All of these are just ways to target a larger area of guns. But it did the same thing for shotguns as well. The shotgun is different because the law didn’t really expand on its definition, it just changed the name. Before the law there were tactical shotguns that were completely legal; after the law there were assault shotguns that fell under the prohibited side of the ban. The definition it gave was semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following features: folding or telescoping stock, pistol grip, or detachable magazine. All of those

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    It is a right given to us in the second amendment. It states “the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (“Second Amendment”). The government would need to erase the amendment to ban firearms. This decision would be very unpopular with many citizens in America who consider firearms a part of their culture. The government also cannot remove all firearms from society, because there are many guns that are not registered.…

    • 1808 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Although it is hard to prove direct causation, countries with stricter gun laws do have lower gun deaths. A major argument against gun laws is that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I find this ridiculous of course it is true that by itself a gun cannot hurt anyone. The purpose of these laws is to keep it out of the hands of the people that kill people. If you have nothing to hide and are not planning anything nefarious then you would still be able to own a gun, you would just have to abide by the laws and regulation while purchasing and handling the…

    • 1146 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The second amendment declares that all citizens have the right to bear arms. Many people believe that guns should be banned all together, others might argue and say why? Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. A gun is most definitely a hazard, but is it really the gun doing all the talking? A gun sitting on a counter for instance isn’t going to pick itself up and do any sort of damage.…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The Government cannot simply solve this problem by the way of the gun ban. Just implementing gun control does not fundamentally solve the problem. In the article “Just Take Away Their Guns”, James Q. Wilson wrote that “The National Rifle Association and its allies tell us that "guns don 't kill, people kill" and urge the Government to punish more severely people who use guns to commit crimes” (Wilson, 127). The National Rifle Association and its allies told is very reasonable. The mistake of homicide case is the people want to kill someone, not what weapon he used.…

    • 1289 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Gun Control Policy

    • 1067 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The weakness of this recommendation, however, is that is not every state require a license to purchase a gun. As a way to maybe address that, we should set a law stating that every state is required to have their citizen be licensed to purchase a gun. That way, this recommendation would still work to a certain extend because those who are licensed will have something to lose and be punished for if they are caught breaking this…

    • 1067 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In the article against banning guns, by Shiha Dalmia, I believe they make a valid argument. It is unrealistic to believe that the government would be able to take all guns away, even if they put regulations on them. People have many ways to get their hands on guns, even if they have to do it illegally. The article states,” There is no easy way to get Americans to voluntarily surrender their guns. Asking them nicely won’t do the trick.” This implies that people feel personally attached to their guns and that they aren’t going to just turn them in.…

    • 776 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Debate On Gun Control

    • 1390 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The second amendment is quoted as “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 can be argued form both sides. What anti gun control advocates would say about this is that the people have a right to defend themselves. If the US were to fall or become compromised, it would be up to the citizens to defend themselves from whomever the perpetrators are. Citizens also quote the second amendment when talking about measures that do not refer to protection. Stricter gun laws, or even the banning of certain types of weapons would hinder citizens who enjoy sport shooting.…

    • 1390 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Why Guns Are Bad

    • 750 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Throughout history, the citizens of the U.S have used firearms to defend themselves. Also, the second amendment gives them the right to carry guns, and it is because they believe that guns control law is not working. Did you ever think of how you would defend yourself if our country was invaded in a war ? the only protection we will have is our military. They can not fight for this country forever.Therefor the arms embargo laws simply reduce the possibility of self-defends laws.…

    • 750 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Having gun control in those countries and people are still getting guns makes you want to fear for your life. The use of logos was weak here because if it had failed in those countries, what makes them think gun control laws will be obeyed here in the United States. Their facts show that even though those countries in Europe had stricter gun laws, determined killers still managed to get their hands on weapons. These facts show gun control in America would end up the same as it did in France, England, and Norway, ineffective. The use of logos was ineffective because it was proven killers still had access to weapons in countries with strict gun laws.…

    • 1105 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Gun Control Effectiveness

    • 1667 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The Federal government couldn’t stop people from obtaining alcohol no matter what they did. Which also means if there was a weapons ban they couldn’t stop people from buying weapons. It also showed that despites all of the laws made their still is people who are willing to do whatever possible in order to obtain what they want. If the Federal government started to make more strict gun control laws. Then there will most defiantly be an increase in criminally bought weapons.…

    • 1667 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays