Essay On Revising The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment should be kept, and not changed for the worse, because it isn’t the gun that kills a person, it is very useful in situations when self-defense is required, and it provides a safer environment for everyone to live in.

People misuse or overuse the right to bear arms. Society believes since it is written in the constitution, we are able to own a gun for individual self defense or other purposes. Notably, the “right of self-defense is described by St. George Tucker as the first law of nature.”” In other cases, people believe it should not be in the constitution because it can be dangerous. However, another theory is that the constitutions defining statement is the people are to protect our democratic values. Uphold our traditional principles by defending against the foreign threats or domestic tyranny. With all of these concluding solutions to the nations debate over the right to bear arms, it is no wonder the U.S. has not come to a final decision. America, of course, will most likely never come to an agreement. Despite the argument, the second amendment is shaped to benefit the

The U.S constitution is in place to protect citizens rights from the government. It plays as a check in balance in powers amongst the most powerful. But why is that even with the constitution in place to protect us, we find certain discrepancies which result in Supreme Court cases or Landmark cases. One of the most disputable amendments in our constituting governmental platform is, to much surprise, the 2nd amendment. In my opinion, its due to its broadness in explanation. According to constitutioncenter, the 2nd amendment Passed by Congress September 25, 1789. Ratified December 15, 1791, and its states as followed, “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.” As you can see, its brief in what its prerogative is, but not specific on situational based questions. We as humans want to know the “what ifs” in any situation especially when something isn’t addressed. This results in cases that end up in the Supreme court. One of the most notable cases regarding the 2nd amendment, was District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

Not only does the Second Amendment provide citizens with peace of mind that they can protect themselves against the authority, but it also allows citizens to protect themselves from fellow Americans, should the need arise. Firearms help to create a level playing field for all people, regardless of their age, size, gender, or even disability. Because we have the ability to carry arms, dangerous people no longer have the ability to pick and choose “easy” victims due to their lesser size or strength. No matter who you are, an added measure of security can make all the difference in a dangerous

Out of all Constitutional Amendments, the Second is without a doubt one of the most controversial and debated alterations made to the United States Constitution. A majority of citizens in modern society are familiar with Madison's famous words that allow all individuals to own weapons and in part also guarantees their protection. Ratified on December 17, 1791, the Second Amendment grants citizens the right to possess their own weapons. Additionally, the amendment restricts the government from overstepping this right guaranteed to the people. When this amendment was ratified the nation lacked a standing army. By ratifying this amendment, the Founding Fathers established a militia who would possess weapons and essentially gave the United States a stronger defense. The Second Amendment is very much still in play today, however; there are some changes, regulations, and restrictions placed on gun control. In the Supreme Court Case District of Columbia v. Heller, it was decided that the amendment was not intended to mean the right to carry any weapon no matter the circumstance. Some regulations placed on the purchase of firearms are felons and individuals with mental illnesses cannot purchase guns. Also, there is a zero tolerance of firearms in schools and government areas. (

Does the second amendment have a place in the year 2016? I personally don’t believe so. Before I go into great length, or become long winded, I will say that I am not for the second amendment. And with my upbringing, it would surprise a lot of people. I’m from the south. However, I am liberal, I come from a long line of conservative republicans and war veterans. Not to mention, my mother, by the age of 15, could take apart and put back together a machine gun. Guns as a hobby, I can respect, but it isn’t my cup of tea. Guns are dangerous, regardless if I am, or if the person holding one is. We owe it to ourselves, and to our fellow Americans to want to make the country we call home safer with every generation.

The history of the second amendment and the laws that have come after are significant, dating back to 1971, when the Bill of Rights was ratified to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is a list of amendments that gives rights to individuals and limits government power. 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.” So, the original writing and intent of the second amendment was geared to militia and military only, and it did not address a specific type of weapon. The second amendments intent for individual Americans did not come into question until 1822. A Kentucky court case indicted a man for carrying a sword concealed in a cane. The man was fined $100.00. But it wasn’t until 1856, that the second amendment was affirmed by the US Supreme Court, that the ownership of a gun was extended to individuals as a right.

Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being

We need to keep the second amendment the same and not change one thing to it. If we didn’t have the guns then we can’t defend ourselves. People want to change the amendment to where we can’t buy guns as easy, and they want to try changing it to where we got to have license to own one. If we keep the amendment the same then we can protect ourselves from any danger: “The first is that the amendment was meant to ensure that individuals have the absolute right to own firearms” (Mount, 2011). This means that we should have it to where we have the right to own guns and to keep it easier to buying and shooting them. Another reason, the military has guns, and they need them to fight: “The second is that the amendment was meant to ensure that States

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is the amendment of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right to keep and bear arms. The amendment clearly states that 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. This means that citizens of the United States shall be able to carry firearms within reason to do so, when pertaining to safety. The Second Amendment has been disputed over the years and has become very controversial for many reasons. On one hand, it is considered to be one of the most important amendments in the Constitution because it presents the citizens of the United States with a means to protect themselves. On the other hand, some feel that over the years, certain citizens have over stepped their second amendment rights and as a result, there have been a number of national tragedies with numerous casualties.

Guns, used for a wide variety of things, such as hunting, sports, and defense. Though destructive, guns have their uses. But what allows citizens to own guns in the U.S.? The answer to that question is the 2nd amendment. The amendment states that citizens can bear guns, and that a free state should have a good militia. At the end of the amendment, the amendment states that it should not be infringed. Back in 2012 Obama was claimed to try to take away guns. Should guns be taken away from U.S. citizens, or even the whole second amendment? Well, the second amendment should not be taken away, because guns provide defense against attackers, state militias provide more safety, and the amendment itself says it should not

“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.” - Second Amendment. Throughout history, this sentence of twenty seven words has caused an intense debate. The polemic is that some people claim that a gun control policy is unconstitutional, while others disagree and even say it is necessary in order to reduce crime. Now, what does gun control mean? If it means to analyze who is responsible enough to own a gun by a “Universal Background Check”; that sounds right to everyone. But in the article “What Are Obama’s Gun Control Proposals? An Easy Guide” published in the National Journal by Matt Vasilogambros. The author states that the “gun-control

"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 has been the subject to much political disagreements and controversy. It was written and ratified in December 1791 (Brooks “The Second Amendment & the Right to Bear Arms”). There are many who want to repeal “the right to bear arms” because they feel they feel that is why criminals get a hold of weapons so easily. Others say that citizens should have access to their own weapons and protection. Even more political controversy has arisen due to the mass shooting that took place in Las Vegas, Nevada last week-end leaving more wanting to revoke the second amendment. In spite of this, I have been brought to the conclusion that the second amendment should not be redacted because, some rely on hunting as an income, citizens have a right to defend themselves, and citizens have a right to defend their freedom.

We have had several of the worst mass shootings in our nation's history in quick succession over the past few years. Certain legal restrictions and acts from our government could have prevented numerous deaths. Common sense background checks and limitations to cartridge size and assault weapons would surely have saved many lives at the Las Vegas Massacre, but certain men and women claim that these restrictions violate their second amendment right. They claim that guns aren't the problem. That guns don't kill people, people kill people. So limiting access to devastating guns is just avoiding the problem. The Second Amendment right presumably violated by common sense gun control is “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” (Second Amendment). The Second Amendment states that for the need of a well regulated militia to protect the security of the free state and the right for the people to keep and bear arms. Militias have been inactive for decades so in a sense the intent of the amendment is no longer relevant. Based on the 2nd Amendment, the Constitution is not still a valuable and viable document in modern America because it stands in the way of thorough background checks, training courses, and its vague wording and absolute intent make it inefficient to maintain peace and order and should be amended “To the People of the United

The Second Amendment gives the citizens of the Unites States the right to bare arms. Now this is not all inclusive, in fact Federal and State laws prohibit convicted felons, the mentally ill also drug and alcohol addicted persons from legally obtaining firearms. I could only venture to say how many laws pertaining to firearms there are in the United States, some say between six hundred to twenty-two thousand laws nationwide. Do we need more laws governing the acquisition and possession of firearms? I say NO! There are so many laws on the books presently, enforcement of the laws which remain in place should be the priority instead of creating additional restrictive ones which will ultimately hinder the law abiding citizens of this great country.