Right To Bear Arms Research Paper

The US Constitution refers to a document that embodies and outlines the major principles of the American government. The Constitution includes the Bill of Rights, which contains the first ten amendments in regard to citizen and state rights pertaining to the Federal Government. In that case, certain civil rights and liberties are explicitly guaranteed to US citizens through these various amendments. In addition, the Constitution also grants and distributes powers for the branches of the Federal government, the people, and states.
Through the Constitution and Bill of Rights, we have four major rights and liberties that have been established and implied by the political system. The first right is the freedom of speech, which establishes a range …show more content…
The right to bear arms is slightly vague in which there is an inconsistent argument for individual rights versus collective rights. According to the Cornell University Law website, the collective rights theory implies that citizens do not have the right to possess guns at an individual basis and that all legislative bodies should be able to regulate firearms without infringing upon this right. On the other hand, the individual rights theory implies that citizens may possess firearms under the implication for self-defense. The right to bear arms has been dealt with many court cases, in particular interest with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling in the District of Columbia v. Heller. The right to bear arms is vague in terms of whether individuals have the opportunity to possess firearms through military duty and collective security versus personal defense. This debate has led to various ideas regarding what the founders actually implied in terms of both ranges and …show more content…
Civil liberties regard to the protection against government actions while civil rights refer to actions of government to create equal conditions for all citizens. In this case, associate vs the right to bear arms has caused tension between citizens. The Second Amendment implies that the ability to posses firearms should not be infringed upon. However, it does not specify whether it relates to the idea that they must possess these weapons for military use or personal use. For instance, the idea that you must be within a civil position, police officer or in the military, may infringe upon the rights of a person who possess a weapon for their personal defense. There has been a lot of tension regarding the restriction and regulation of guns for individual protection versus possession for collective security of the nation. This conflict can be minimized through the idea of mediating the struggles and implications of the Second Amendment, since it is vague and broad. Through this, the supporters of collective possession and the supporters of individual possession can balance out what they would like to regulate and form a mediation between the two spectrums. Personally, I think this issue can be solved over a period of time, allowing both sides to consider what they want to gain and are willing to give up. It may be necessarily difficult to deal out fair outcomes for both sides and indicate a sense of satisfaction for

Show More