The 2nd Amendment Of The Second Amendment In The United States

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

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, (the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights was planned and sent to the states, and were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification (three-fourths of the States) on December 15, 1791.

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

Although many may argue that it is our Constitutional right to bear arms which therefore cannot be infringed upon, ultimately this statement holds a fallacy in that the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights 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.” A militia, by definition, is a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. There is no statement within the Second Amendment holding the fact that any civilian, licensed or not licensed to carry, cannot have this right revoked in any daily life situation. The Second Amendment clearly states that only when necessary in emergence may a well regulated militia hold the right to bear arms. Are we, as citizens of the United States holding this fallacy because we believe we need such power, or do we hold such power because we believe this fallacy.

Gun control is one of the most debated about topic today in America; between news outlet, the public, and politicians. As some politicians look to resolve the gun control issues, with banning them, imposing more restriction to sellers, buyers and owner; some people and politicians consider the second amendment to be relic and should be removed from the constitution. History has shown us time and time again even through all the violence and chaos in the world and America, that there is a reason for the creation of the second amendment. From history of America independence in 1776 to the ratification of the bill of right in 1791 the 2nd amendment still remains relevant form it creation, to modern times, and the protection of America’s future; for the freedom of its inhabitants and citizens. The once influential 20th century thinker George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Looking back into ancient history, the history of second amendment, recent and current history we can find clues that will support the relevance of the 2nd amendment. We will also define the second amendment and try to find solutions to our current problems from what our forefathers had say.

‘“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.”’ (“Gun Control”) Due to firearms, more than 30,000 people die in America every year. Mass shootings happen frequently and people die because of the lack of laws and their security. The United States needs better gun control laws because automatic assault rifles are easy to buy, the mentally ill can purchase guns, and many die from guns each year.

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” (The United States Constitution). Most gun

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified effective by Congress. These first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America promised the states certain rights and freedoms which could not be infringed by the government. After all, the founding fathers knew from experience that men in their weakness were often tempted by power. They had become all too familiar with this when under the control of King George in England. Therefore, in order to protect the future people of their beautiful country, they promised certain liberties which could not be taken away. Every single one of these freedoms is important for the United States of America. However, the second amendment is especially important

The second amendment of United States constitution said “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 amendment was embraced on December 15, 1791, taking in consideration that American citizens have a natural right to self-defense and they can help to accomplish the following purposes:

     This timeless phrase, the Second Amendment of the United States’ Constitution, is an enduring example of the principles and ideals that our country was founded on. With this statement, the founders of this country explicitly and perpetually guaranteed the American individual the right to keep and bear arms. An incomparably crucial element of this country‘s origins, the Second Amendment and the rights it guarantees have proved vital to the growth and success of our nation.

The first amendment is one of the most used amendments today. Everyone in the world uses it and sometimes takes advantage of it and most times uses it when needed to. The Bill Of Rights was created on December 15th of 1779 and was created to make some rules in the future because no one had the freedom to do anything. Most were punished if they spoke their opinion, they did not even have the right to choose their own religion. But that all changed when James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights which is our first ten amendments. The First Amendment is and always will be the most used amendment today.

Repealing the second amendment would not make America safer because it does not penalize the criminals doing harm but the law abiding citizens exercising their right to self-defense. As stated in the book In Our Defense, Zangrilli argues "the ordinance penalizes the victim, not the criminal." An ordinance to prohibit handguns in Morton Grove, a small town in the United States. The point of the 2nd amendment was to be able to balance the power of the state and the power of the people. Around the late 18th century, mass production of firearms ensured that almost everyone could afford a rifle. This equality of arms between the people and the state allowed for individuals to assert their right to self-defense. The ability for the people to resist

The truth to the statement that “Texas has a love affair with the 2nd amendment more than any of the other amendments” is circumstantial depending on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The second amendment is the most challenged amendment because it is so vaguely worded and not straight forward. It reads “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 somewhat incoherent statement leaves policy makers wondering whether the founding fathers were trying to protect gun ownership rights only for purposes of military duty and collective security or wanted to make guns accessible to all so that they could protect themselves. In order to asses if Texas’ love affair with the second amendment, we must look at the second amendment from both sides of the interpretation.

“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.”

I agree with the outcome because the authorities did not have enough probable cause to force the suspect into giving up his passwords to the encrypted drives. The District Attorney attempted to circumvent the current laws in order to force decryption of the drives that would have violated the suspect’s rights against self incrimination which would have been a direct violation of the Fifth Amendment. If the authorities already had the same evidence they were asking for it would have served no purpose if the drives were decrypted. If the drives did in fact contain the content that the prosecutor claimed to be on the drives and that information would have been used as evidence against the suspect, so the suspect had every legal right to refuse tho give up the passwords. The fact that the suspect invoked his Fifth Amendment rights in which he refused to provide the drives encryption keys or refused to decrypted content is the sole reason why I agreed with the suspect. I also found what the prosecutor attempted to do to be unethical, if he wanted the information that bad with out having the evidence to support his suspicions, he should have followed the law and granted the suspect total, and unlimited immunity from prosecution.