How do i argue for federal GUN REGULATION?

Question

im not sure the only thing i could find were some statistics and the first clause of the second amendment

i don't rly have much i keep researching but i can't find any good arguments

help please?

Answer 1

You're a little late dude.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided a case called D.C. v. Heller a few months ago. It is the first time the Supreme Court addressed the 2nd Amendment in over 70 years.

This is the wikipedia link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of...

This is the lawyers link

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07...

Bottom line, Scalia wrote the opinion. The Liberals got sqished like bugs.  Federal gun regulation is unconstitutional.  Period. End of story.

Held:  

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

        (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

        (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

         (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

        (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

        (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

        (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

    3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

Answer 2

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but you're in for a tough time. I figured I'd give you some info that an opposing side would use against you...

First of all, the first clause in the second amendment is essentially meaningless. That type of phrase is referred to as an independent ablative clause - whereby the first part may suggest a reason or purpose for the second but is not binding. Another example that I've heard a lot is "The teacher being sick today, class is canceled" Now that doesn't mean that the ONLY reason class would be canceled is because of illness. Class could be canceled because of bad weather, a holiday, a death, etc.

As far as stats go...trust me you don't want to go there. Generally speaking a society with guns has low crime. Why? Because nobody wants to get shot. If you were to commit robbery, would you rather try a gun shop or a grocery store? Armed criminals are an unfortunate element in our society (and one that can't be easily removed) - however an increase in armed civilians tends to lower crime rates. Take a look at Kennessaw (sp?) Georgia for more info.

Another reason you don't want to bring up stats - they're irrelevant. Federal gun regulations violate the second amendment. End of story. You could have great intentions behind it, but the right is still protected...

I'll leave it at that - I'm not trying to debate you - just show/warn you that you are going to have a hard time. You'd be better off switching sides

Answer 3

The first clause of the Second Amendment doesn't support Federal gun regulation

The 2nd Amendment is very easy to understand if you read it.

a. A well regulated militia---The goal

b. being necessary to the security of a free State,---The reason

c. the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.---The means of accomplishing the goal.

This is spelled out in a quote from one of the authors of the 2nd Amendment, Tench Coxe; "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

Answer 4

There should not be any federal gun regulations, that should be left up to the states, and other local jurisdictions. The Constitution allows for gun ownership, it is up to the states to regulate that ownership. Go to your state legislature and present your arguments. You would have a much better chance of being heard.

Answer 5

You are better to argue that the constitution 'is a living document' when it in reality is not.

If it was a 'living document' you could wildly interpret it, even though it is written in very plain and understandable english.

Your argument may want to try to portray rights, as not rights, but privelages. Saying we only have the government given privelage to secure our persons and property, not the god given right.

*Yes,  this is a absurd argument - to ban guns

Answer 6

yea good luck there is no real data to support severe gun regulation.  Some regulation is common sense.  Use the Virginia Tech shooting for evidence that crazy people shouldnt be able to buy guns.

Answer 7

wow.....sorry you drew such a bad topic.  There are no good arguments to support it.  

Answer 8

Frankly, you can't find any good legal arguments because there are no good legal arguments.

Some will hasten to add that there may be some good moral arguments. If this is so - which is subjective, at best - this alone will not win an argument for you in a legal arena.

Therefore since there simply are no good legal arguments, you'd be better off spending the next 5 to 10 years of your life on a pursuit where you actually have a faint hope of success.

Answer 9

wow - there is lots of federal gun regulation already - Assuming you are in the US look at the ATF website

http://www.atf.treas.gov/

you will find more laws than you shake a stick at already in force!!!

Answer 10

Read the dissenting opinion of the recent Supreme Court case that found the Washington, D.C. laws were overly restrictive.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07...

Note also that there are many federal laws based entirely upon the so-called interstate commerce clause, where Congress would otherwise have absolutely no jurisdiction over what people do, and how the states choose to regulate them.  Look into the question of Congressional jurisdiction, and the related challenges to federal gun laws, as recorded in the notes to the United States Code Annotated (USCA).

Good luck with making a good argument for the weak side of the issue; it will be good experience to see things from the unpopular perspective.

Answer 11

Read a book by John Lott called "More Guns Less Crime".Lott was an anti-gun professor and wanted to write a book about how bad guns are,instead he studied the data and found out that guns aren't the problem.

Answer 12

You would have to argue for a loosing disposition. The problem is, there is NO good argument for more Federal gun regulation.

Sorry, but you chose the wrong side of the topic. The only way to argue your side is to use fear and emotion. Logic and reason belongs to the other side of the argument.

Answer 13

Why on Earth would you want to do that?  I thought we were all tired of the Federal Government having too much power...