Second Amendment Pros And Cons

The second amendment is a very strong debate that usually doesn’t have a neutral view. In my opinion, guns should be harder to get but not completely taken away. The government was founded on freedom and specific laws that differed us from other governments. As it is the second amendment in the “Bill of Rights” that are always thought of being rights every single American has that can never be taken away. Although the amendment was created in a time that guns were actually for defense and used rather scarcely, the guns now are way too advanced for just anyone to buy.

In the Second Amendment, it gives people the right to bear firearms. This means that most people can own a gun legally and use it how they want. Some can use them for hunting, target practice, defense, or for a collection. As of now most people can go to a gun store, maybe pass a background check, fill out some papers, and come back with a weapon. If you buy it elsewhere, you might not have to pass or sign anything.

When talking about the First Amendment, the law protects us from freedom of speech and free exercise of religion and it also stops Congress from making any new law to prohibit free speech and free exercise. The case involving a Christian printer who refused to print gay pride T-shirts. The printer declined the printing job for T-shirts promoting a gay pride festival on religious grounds, but he did offer the customer to help them find other local printers to do the work for the same price. Based on the information that was provided the printer had a history of rejecting other orders for shirts promoting sexually explicit material/actions and violence.

The First Amendment guarantees the right of free speech, but there are many other forms of the first amendment. The most common, is pure speech, which is the use of the spoken word to transport a particular idea. Another form is symbolic speech that refers to the use of symbolic objects or action to express an idea. Some examples of symbolic speech might be waving a flag or burning a cross. The First Amendment protects almost of forms of pure speech and symbolic speech. The First Amendment protects some of symbolic meaning, but not all. Congress argued that burning the American flag was of symbolic meaning to express political views

It has been two hundred and twenty years since the Constitution was written. In that short amount of time, we have fought several wars and made new discoveries that brought us one step closer to the future. During all of this, society’s political views have slowly shifted over the past two hundred years. From women’s suffrage to civil rights, to same gender marriage, we have adopted beliefs that would have been considered unthinkable during the era that the Founding Fathers lived in. Each of these political accomplishments would not have been possible without the process of Amendments that was put in place by the Founding Fathers. However, each of these accomplishments took several years, and even decades, to accomplish because we continue

The First Amendment is an amendment that protects the right of speech, petition, assembly, religion, and press. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.” (heritage.org)

The First Amendment was created in a way, to ensure that all those who seek freedom, in speech, press, religion, and assembling can do so. However, recently freedom of religion has not been fully secured. For instance, there has been bans against immigrants sorely because of their religion stereotype. Something that is contradictory to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...". The First Amendment should be able to encourage each and every religious freedom, because people no longer feel safe about expressing their religion as the United States government have shown favoritism towards other certain religions. And since numbers are rising in certain religions, diversity should be accepted and shown throughout the U.S. and by the government.

The second amendment of The Constitution of the Unites States rules 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.” In recent years this has become a highlighted and popular discussion topic throughout people and media. Typical with American media the subject of gun control is visited with broad stroked of red and the use of fear tactics while completely ignoring the complicated and underling positives and negatives of public access to firearms and the benefits and risks associated with this freedom. Most people do not carry a weapon at all and may question others who do because of the moderately low risk of being a victim of a crime. Those how carry however like to think “Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.”

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, outlining the right for any citizens to bear arms, is considered a cornerstone of our culture, but given how weapons have advanced so much since the amendment was drafted, is the “right to bear arms” truly ethical? In the past several decades, the United States has witnessed an unprecedented number of mass shootings (372 in 2015 alone), increasing in deadliness as citizens gain access to more advanced tech. Despite the frequency of these shootings and the number of victims killed, there has been little effective action taken to curtail these shootings in the United States. While liberals argue that the solution is strict gun regulation, conservatives claim that it infringes on the rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. Effectively, we’re forced to ask whether our right to own weapons is ethical in light of these tragedies where many innocent lives are lost. In good faith, I will argue in favor of the liberal argument of strict gun laws.

In this essay, I propose to amend the Constitution to modify the second amendment with: A well regulated State National Guard is necessary to provide safety of a free country when needed, the rights of people who pass the background check, shall not be infringed.

Your blog brought up many interesting points. It seems as though you are supporting the making of an amendment to counter the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. You stated that times have changed and you are absolutely right. There are not wild animals living on the streets nor are there state militias like there were in the 1700's. However, you also talked about the conservative view that many ignorant Republicans hold. I suggest that you check out this link http://heedinggodscall.org/content/pfctoolkit-10 as it has some astonishing numbers on injury or death related incidents due to firearms. Now check out this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate. As you can see, countries with little

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 adoption of the Constitution depended on ratification, or approval, by 9 of the 13 states.

The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise there of; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Christianity is one of the oldest and most popular religions of the United States. This makes it very easy for Christians to be ridiculed. The First Amendment is allegedly ensured to every American, but Christians have to fight to keep their First Amendment Rights.

The second amendment states the right of the people to bear arms, but can giving this much freedom be threatening? "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." There is a lot of debate with the second amendment, are guns safe or threatening to the people of the United States. This issue greatly concerns me because now I think, is it safe to go out, to go to school, or the movies? This issue concerns everyone not only in the US, but around the world.