Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Right to Bear Arms
Arguing for the right to bear arms is a more complex and challenging task than arguing against it. The key, then, to a successful argument for the position I have chosen is to point out facts and information that would be relevant and convincing to the audience I am going to address. There are various audiences to which my arguments will be addressed. These audiences include the general public and specific sectors relevant to the issue of gun control. These specific sectors include gun owner groups and anti-gun ownership groups. Between these two groups, anti-gun ownership groups would prove to be a more challenging sector to convince than gun owners. The general public is also susceptible to the popular belief that gun ownership is generally harmful to civil society, which could promote a gradual dissent to gun ownership or the right to bear arms.
For the general public and anti-gun ownership groups, points that must be pointed out are two main arguments. The first argument would be to point out that essentially, the right to bear arms is an individual right that can be exercised by any member of the civil society. In so doing, an individual is merely accomplishing a right that is rightfully his/hers from the beginning. The second main argument to be pointed out is that gun ownership does not necessarily translate to its improper use, posing as a threat to civil society. The legislative system has created a system that eliminates the occurrence of improper or inappropriate gun use, to prevent this threat from happening. Given these existing arguments for gun ownership, both anti-gun ownership groups and the general public would hopefully subsist to the view that indeed, exercising the right to bear arms is a privilege that will ensure the citizen of his/her safety and precaution against deviants in the civil society.
In asserting that the right to bear arms must be interpreted in the collectivist point-of-view, the author rationalized that "the more collectively the right is interpreted, the more broadly Congress can legislate to restrict the right to bear arms" (347). In effect, what made sense in Busch's analysis is that this particular right, as stated in the Constitution, must be interpreted in the proper context. Thus, Emerson's ownership of
5.0 Conclusion As this paper has argued, the Second Amendment was designed not only to protect the militias; it was also intended to protect an individual's right to own and bear arms. Those groups opposed to the private ownership of firearms should base their arguments on their own personal beliefs rather than a Constitutional interpretation defense. As supported by its historical background and analysis of Constitutional context and meaning, "A well
5 ounces of steel in them. The bill did not pass, but eventually a compromise bill went through requiring all handguns to have at least 3.7 ounces of steel. No completely plastic gun has ever been produced, although guns with a plastic frame are popular because they weigh less. The legislation was unnecessary because, again, no problem existed. Apparently, the gun debate is not the place to look for facts. The
" The strength of Reynolds' report lies on the evidence he had shown to support his arguments, wherein he cited a study that compared communities that have high and low rates of burglaries and break-ins. One similarity that communities with high rates of burglaries share is the fact that these communities have "restrictive gun laws," which proves that indeed, gun control acts more as a detriment rather than a support to
Right to Carry Handguns for Self-Protection: The right to carry handguns for law abiding citizens has been a continual social and political debate about the restriction or availability of firearms within the country. Actually, the right to carry handguns has developed to become one of the major controversial and intractable issues within the social and political environments in the nation. The main reason attributed to the development of this controversial issue
Embedded into the express rights and freedoms of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights is the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment states explicitly the purpose for its existence: "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 is not, as may be commonly believed, uniquely