Top Special Offer! Check discount

Get 13% off your first order - useTopStart13discount code now!

About the second amendment

Guns became a big concern in the United States of America in the twenty-first century. The right of the citizen to bear and hold arms is protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. This amendment was first enacted on December 15, 1791, as one of two amendments found in the American Bill of Rights. According to the United States Supreme Court, the freedom to bear arms belongs to the person, but it is restricted, so no legislation to regulate firearms and related devices is forbidden. According to the judicial interest and bill of rights incorporation, the limitation to infringe this right is at the same extent for the State, local, and federal governments.

However, in the 21st century, the amendment has been subjected to judicial interest and academic inquiry in a renewed manner. In 2008, during a case involving Columbia district and Heller, the supreme court clearly indicated that the amendment essentially protects the right to carry and possess firearms by individuals. In 2010, in a case between McDonald and Chicago, the supreme court further clarified that the second amendment is limited to restrictions on fire arms imposed by the federal government. The supreme court held that the fourteenth amendment which is in process of amendment includes the second amendment against local and state governments. In 2016, in a case between Caetano and Massachusetts, the supreme court reinforced its earlier ruling that the amendment, prima facie, regards all items or devices relating to fire arms including those not yet invented. (Fernandez, 2000)

The right to use guns should be provided through restricting on persons allowable to use them and how they should use them, otherwise many people will lose if the use of guns is completely banned. However, it is worth noting that the American government has not succeeded in gun use control because citizens know and are protective of the second amendment which gives right to bear arms since they feel possessing guns assists in self and family protection in this unsecure world. According to government official, there have been many deadly shootings in past years including concerts, schools and others. since the shooter chances are very real and scary, government officials are working on putting in place a restriction or regulation on the persons’ allowable to purchase, and ammunition. In addition, government officials are aware that people are very passionate about their right to bear arms and know this is going to be a process to get anything done legally because the United States was first born from rebellious people who stood up against the wrong doings of the British.

It is well-known that the American people formed a militia against the British and ended up defeating them (Gerber). Therefore, the worst-case scenario is that these people think their liberty is being taken away and their ability to defend themselves from others or even a government over thrown. In recent years, gun control has been brought up over and over again but not much has been done. Moreover, over the years there has been increased shootings at concerts, schools and other densely populated areas. Every time such tragedy occurs, the question is always whether it has been caused by a sick person or is it that a person not supposed to have a gun have got the ammunition license. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with guns or ammunition but solely the fact that these people are messed up with no morals and shoot into crowds full of mothers and fathers sons and daughters.

In America today, everyone has access to guns either illegally or legally. Therefore, if a destructive person is serious, they easily access weapons of mass destruction and that's why I believe that the person behind it has everything to do with it. This is to mean that the gun is just a fool, people pull the triggers and fire; it's not like the gun operates itself. Government has been very split over the topic with the republicans fighting for gun rights and their right to bear arms according to the 2nd amendment. On the other hand, democrats have been attempting to put more restrictions on guns and ammunition (Massaro, 2008). This has been hard for the democrats because there are so many people who own guns and often go hunting or even carry it with them for protection. According to Joseph Foss, once a governor and the president of National Rifle Association(NRA) said that there is no bad gun, instead all guns are good. His argument is based on NRA objective to protect the rights of American citizens in regard to operation and possession of firms. Moreover, NRA members believes that laws or regulations meant to control the use of guns are not supposed to infringe the American citizen right to protect themselves through possession of firearms.

The republicans are also of the same opinion that possession of fire arms is a right that ought not to be infringed because it enhances self-security for the American citizens. It is for this reason republican have constantly opposed regulations on firearm restriction. History have it that when Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, enthusiast of gun-rights enthusiast accessed the White House. During the same regime, Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah was made chairman senate judicial committee, a crucial subcommittee which wrote a report recommending that a permanent and final proof ought to be provided to clearly indicate that the second amendment was intended to protect the rights of American citizens to peacefully carry and keep firearms so that they can enhance their freedom, protect their families and safeguard themselves. In addition, N.R.A. initiated academic studies which were aimed to prove that the recommendation by the Senate judiciary committee was worth approval. However, this move or constitutional theory outré’ was rejected by many including the Republican Party. However, the outré constitutional theory evolved through brute political force into the conservative conventional wisdom (Fleming, 2016).

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this as long as these people are stable in every day’s life. If I were in charge, I would put lots of requirements to buy a gun, classes and test to see if these people have any major disabilities especially the mental disability. Therefore, the government should not ban possession and operation of handguns, but rather should ban other weapons such as assault rifle and related devices. Even though the full meaning of the supreme court concerning Heller opinion is being debated, it is clear that the content or overall scope of the Second Amendment will be established through politics other the rule of the law. Furthermore, the courts are supposed to give a response to public pressure by eliminating the right on gun control set in the previous thirty years. It is also worth noting that the battle over gun control is not just one of individual votes in Congress, but of a continuing clash of ideas, backed by political power.

References

Fernandez, J. (2000). Guns, crime, and the Second Amendment. Philadelphia : Chelsea House Publishers.

Fleming, J. (2016). The Second Amendment and the American Gun : Evolution and Development of a Right Under Siege. Cork: BookBaby.

Gerber, L. (n.d.). The Second Amendment: The Right to Bear Arms (e-Book). New York: Rosen Digital.

Massaro, J. (2008). No guarantee of a gun : how and why the Second Amendment means exactly what it says. Bloomington, IN: Author House.

August 18, 2021

This sample could have been used by your fellow student... Get your own unique essay on any topic and submit it by the deadline.