Gun Control in America This essay will be comparing the viewpoints from many distinguished writers and activists involved in the ideology of gun control. Some offer intriguing new thoughts and incites to the question of what guns in a twenty-first century America should look like. To begin, Arizona Democrat, Gabrrielle Giffords makes a speech to Congress urging them to produce legislature for better gun control in
Originally published as 99 Yale L. For educational use only. The printed edition remains canonical.
For citational use please obtain a back issue from William S. As most readers can no doubt recall, Manhattan dominates the map; everything west of the Hudson is more or less collapsed together and minimally displayed to the viewer.
What is true of maps of places--that they differ according to the perspectives of the mapmakers--is certainly true of all conceptual maps. To continue the map analogy, consider in this context the Bill of Rights: Is there even a canonical text of the Bill of Rights? Does it include the first eight, nine, p.
One is a stereo- typical member of the American Civil Liberties Union of which I am a card-carrying member ; the other is an equally stereo- typical member of the "New Right.
The other principal avenues would be the criminal procedure aspects of the Constitution drawn from the Fourth,  Fifth,  Sixth,  and Eighth  Amendments.
Also depicted prominently would be the Ninth Amendment,  although perhaps as in the process of construction.
It is this last anomaly that I want to explore in this essay. The Politics of Interpreting the Second Nra second amendment essay To put it mildly, the Second Amendment is not at the forefront of constitutional discussion, at least as registered in what the academy regards as the venues for such discussion--law reviews,  casebooks,  and other p.
As Professor LaRue has recently written, "the second amendment is not taken seriously by most scholars. Neither, however, pays it the compliment of extended analysis.
Both marginalize the Amendment by relegating it to footnotes; it becomes what a deconstructionist might call a Nra second amendment essay to the ostensibly "real" Constitution that is privileged by discussion in the text.
He asserts that the history of the Amendment "indicate[s] that the central concern of [its] framers was to prevent such federal interferences with the state militia as would permit the establishment of a standing national army and the consequent destruction of local autonomy.
One will find extraordinarily little discussion about another one of the initial Bill of Rights, the Third Amendment: The Third Amendment, to take the easiest case, is ignored because it is in fact of no current importance whatsoever although it did, for obvious reasons, have importance at the time of the founding.
It has never, for a single instant, been viewed by any body of modern lawyers or groups of laity as highly relevant to their legal or political concerns.
For this reason, there is almost no caselaw on the Amendment. The Second Amendment, though, is radically different from these other pieces of constitutional text just mentioned, which all share the attribute of being basically irrelevant to any ongoing political struggles.
To grasp the difference, one might simply begin by noting that it is not at all unusual for the Second Amendment to show up in letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines. The National Rifle Association, to name the most obvious example, cares deeply about the Amendment, and an apparently serious Senator of the United States averred that the right to keep and bear arms is the "right most valued by free men.
This reality of the political process reflects the fact that millions of Americans, even if or perhaps especially if they are not academics, can quote the Amendment and would disdain any presentation of the Bill of Rights that did not give it a place of pride.
I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar, including that component found in the legal academy,  is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, perhaps even "winning," interpretations of the Second Amendment would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation.
Thus the title of this essay--The Embarrassing Second Amendment--for I want to suggest that the Amendment may be profoundly embarrassing to many who both support such regulation and view themselves as committed to zealous adherence to the Bill of Rights such as most members of the ACLU.
Indeed, one sometimes discovers members of the NRA who are equally committed members of the ACLU, differing with the latter only on the issue of the Second Amendment but otherwise genuinely sharing the libertarian viewpoint of the ACLU.
It is not my style to offer "correct" or "incorrect" interpretations of the Constitution. Thus my general tendency to regard as wholly untenable any approach to the Constitution that describes itself as obviously correct and condemns its opposition as simply wrong holds for the Second Amendment as well.
In some contexts, this would lead me to label as tendentious the certainty of NRA advocates that the Amendment means precisely what they assert it does.
In this particular context--i. The Rhetorical Structures of the Right to Bear Arms My colleague Philip Bobbitt has, in his book Constitutional Fate,  spelled out six approaches--or "modalities," as he terms them--of constitutional argument.
These approaches, he argues, comprise what might be termed our legal grammar. They are the rhetorical structures within which "law-talk" as a recognizable form of conversation is carried on. The six are as follows: The sixth, which emphasizes the ethos of limited government, does not play a significant role in the debate of the Second Amendment.
Text I begin with the appeal to text. Recall the Second Amendment: What is special about the Amendment is the inclusion of an opening clause--a preamble, if you will--that seems to set out its purpose. No similar clause is a part of any other Amendment,  though that does not, of course, mean that we do not ascribe purposes to them.
It would be impossible to make sense of the Constitution if we did not engage in the ascription of purpose.Youth Essay Contest Click here for a copy of the Entry Form.
Description, Prizes & Deadline: The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund continues its yearly Youth Essay Contest celebrating the Second Amendment as an integral part of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Despite what the NRA called Obama’s “Point Plan to ‘Change’ the Second Amendment,” gun rights are alive and well in America, and gun sales are at historic highs. When such chaos reigns, the second amendment provides no solution, as the NRA and likeminded individuals would like you to believe.
Our redemption is through the demand of the voters for a new government, as prescribed in our Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Political Science Summary of the Article “ How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment ” The article "How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment" is adapted from the book “The Second Amendment: A Biography” by Michael Waldman, and published on POLITICO web page in .
Susan LaPierre, co-chair of the National Rifle Association's Leadership Forum and wife of NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre, has landed a seat on the National Park Foundation's board of . Nra second amendment essay solving linear equations pdf free creative cover letter templates. Gre raw score conversion Gre raw score conversion one paragraph essay trump tax plan c++ copy structure using pointer homework now nomma change of control provision language.