The Pros And Cons Of The Second Amendment

The situation of gun control has been an issue for many years. The Second Amendment states that we as citizens have the right to bear arms and to protect ourselves. When the Constitution was first made the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the heart of the issue of gun control. It also 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 states declared that the Amendment was only created to allow the government to bear arms. The way it reads though is that it grants the rights of all people to bear arms. There have been cases brought before the Supreme Court that has fought the right to bear arms and used the amendment to protect their rights. The government does not have the right to take away the guns from the people but is able to control the manufacturing, sales, and possessions of guns.

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.

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

Samuel Adams once said “The militia is composed of free citizens”. Other supporters contend that the term militia was “interchangeable with the terms ‘citizenry’ or ‘people’ at the time the Second Amendment was written… it stands to reason that militia referred broadly to all men of voting age” (The Strange Syntax of the Second Amendment). In the 2008 case of District of Columbia vs. Heller, the right to bear arms was upheld by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia ruled stating “although the term implies the carrying of a weapon in order to attack or defend oneself from an attack, it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization” (Syntax).

Ever since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791 the right of the people to keep and bear arms has played a factor in the United States history. Sides have been taken and people have fought over the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Everybody has an opinion on every topic that has ever come up. While opinions can vary, there can be some common grounds for viewpoints. Commonly, the Second Amendment is looked at as a two-sided issue; (1) Citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms and (2) Citizens should not be allowed to own and carry firearms. But in looking at a community of people who own firearms, it is evident that even in what seems to be a two sided argument has room for many different positions on one side

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.

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.

Through the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court sets their first precedent concerning the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense by establishing the individual right of gun ownership for lawful purposes. The Court grants this interpretation of the Second Amendment after the U.S. Circuit Courts have set a six decade precedent of rejecting challenges to federal regulation of firearms with few exceptions under the United States v. Miller (1939) decision. Fox News Channel’s senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, writing in defense of this decision, states that self-defense using firearms is a natural right enshrined by the Second Amendment, and that historical precedents of using guns to successfully defend against tyrants justify the current need for guns, not only for recreational activities such as hunting deer, but also for weapons with sufficient power to defend against enemies with equal effectiveness. Furthermore, supporters interpret the Second Amendment to apply to the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. However, based on the preamble to the Amendment, historical context, and the precedent case United States v. Miller, the Second Amendment intends to protect the right of people in a militia to keep and bear arms and does not preclude federal restriction of individual firearm ownership, especially considering the changes to the structure of the American militia and military

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.

I am against the Second Amendment which is the right to bare arms for several reasons. Growing up from the city of Chicago which is one of the most violent city's in the world I have seen a lot of violence. I have heard of a lot of relatives and people I knew or my friends knew where either killed or was shot. There was a lot of violence even before they had the conceal to carry law, so being all for the second amendment would go against I believed in.  Growing up I never wanted to bare arms because I felt it should have been in the hands of the law to take care of criminals etc. and not kids or people themselves. Since moving to Las Vegas things are 100% different from where I come from. You still hear about people you

The 2nd amendment of the U.S. Constitutions protects the rights of people to bear arms, such as assault rifles. Are guns to blame? Gun control isn’t the answer. It’s whoever is behind the trigger. I do believe that the United States needs better mental health reforms to help those in need that way no more mass shootings happen. Have you heard or seen the phrase “guns don’t kill people, people do”? As Americans our rights are established on the constitution and the amendments. The 2nd amendment has been a debate since Obama’s administration. After so many mass shootings, it still comes down to, whos fault is it?