Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on The Question Of Gun Control / Our Constitutional Right To Bear Arms. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
A 5 page paper that looks at the Second Amendment and the few gun control cases and laws that have been passed over the centuries since. The paper defends the right to bear arms and posits that the right to bear arms is not only a constitutional right, but an historic imperative based on the general public's historic experiences with centrist governments and centrist movements--and what 'militia' means in this context. Bibliography lists 4 sources.
Page Count:
5 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_Yesguns.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
ownership is an obsolete concept, and that since guns are no longer necessary for survival, owning them can only lead to murder and mayhem. (Barnett and Kates 1139-1259; Cramer
and Kopel 679-7). The battles rage, but not a single court case since 1939 has sought to take away the right to bear arms. That is, until recently.
In the past, federal laws have been changed only by acts of Congress, not the Supreme Court, and the states have sought to uphold the Second Amendment liberty. (Doherty
48(3). The fact that this may be changing has set a dangerous precedent. The right to bear arms must remain legal.
The Second Amendment 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." (Doherty 48(3)). Advocates for gun control and advocates for the right to bear arms split the amendment in two. Gun control advocates claim that the definitive
statement in the amendment resides in the first words, "a well-regulated militia" necessary to secure the freedom of the state (country). (Barnett and Kates 1139-1259). For this reason, they
argue, the amendment is no longer necessary--we have won our civil war. To them, the amendment represents a guarantee to form militias to protect U.S. autonomy, not individual rights.
For them, the right to bear arms means the right to kill. The right to bear advocates completely disagree. For them
it is an issue of freedom, not the freedom to shoot to kill, but the freedom to remain free. They rely on the second half of the statement, "the
...