Arguments Against The Second Amendment

Man will be tempted, government leaders will take advantage of their power for control, and darkness may fall over the land, but as long as good men are not idle, evil will not thrive. The second amendment enables the good to take action against evil. Thomas Jefferson put this best when he said, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Our second amendment is important because it gives good men the ability to protect those self-evident truths from a corrupt and overreaching government.

     This conclusion, although widespread, is hardly valid. In the time of our fore-fathers, bearing arms was not only fully acceptable, but was ultimately necessary for the protection of the livelihood of the individual and for the preservation and prosperity of the nation. A nation of citizens with the right to bear arms demands the respect of their government and has the capacity to influence their own leadership; an unarmed population lives at the mercy of their administration. It is hardly conceivable that the drafters of the Constitution would incorporate a statement limiting the right to keep and bear arms to members of a state militia. To include this condition would ultimately have removed from practice the very entity that freed this country from oppression and gained us our independence: the right of the individual to keep and bear arms. The second amendment was not intended only to grant a privilege to a group, but to preserve the right of the individual.

The second amendment mentioned about having well-developed and structured Militia which is required for the security of a free state. This amendment it’s important for people as others cause the main reason for having the bill of rights is to give people freedom and let them decide for their future and their own country that their living on and maintaining good and safe militia, as this amendment permit the American citizens to have the right to conserve themselves armed and to sustain a militia. As up right now there are several countries that take away the rights for their citizens to be armed such as Great Britain, which the government had voted to authorize their citizens to be disarmed.

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).

I do and always will believe in the second amendment. People have the right to own and carry guns with them wherever they go. People have the right to own guns for hunting purposes and putting food on the table to feed their family, and they also have the right to carry a gun with them for self defence and keep in the house to protect their family. It is and always will be my belief that people have the right do whatever it is that they want to do when it comes to

Written in 1789 by James Madison, the Second Amendment is one that most passionate Americans today are very quick to defend or argue against. The Second Amendment is one of the most controversial and complex amendments in the Bill of Rights. One of those debates includes the actual meaning behind James Madison’s contradictory sentence. The question that often rises is was the Second Amendment created for the protection of the all people or solely for the establishment of a centralized military. The Second Amendment has undergone several changes which established stricter regulations and more clarification but however it is ultimately still controversial in modern society as it is unclear in wording and meaning.

As a solution of this problem, since amendment can be changed then, the federal and state government should have a election for this law in the senate and house of representatives. Otherwise, it owing gun for safety is never going to reduce the number of death happening in every second. If people votes for banning gun totally then, it is a great solution. Only the army and the police can have the gun to protect the people and society. If people votes for second amendment then, in order to reduce the amount of death, government have to make the laws more stricker and logical laws. They should make the age requirement much longer which is going to convert 21 from 18. Otherwise, the younger generation will become killer. In my opinion, America

How can the original writing and intent of the second amendment, be relevant in our society today?

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. Even though this amendment has been around for hundreds of years, people still argue over what it means and if it should still apply today. The two extreme sides of this argument as stated in Henry Winkler’s book are the Gun Nuts and the Gun Grabbers (Winkler 15,45). One side argues that there should not be any guns at all, and the other side argues that everyone should have a gun. This discussion has been around for decades, and I believe that it is not going away anytime soon. There are a few arguments as to why I believe that the government shall not and cannot remove guns from American citizens. First, I believe that I have a constitutional right to own firearms due to the second amendment. Secondly, everyone should not be punished for the actions of a few lawless individuals. Thirdly, the removal of firearms would be costly, hard to enforce and unlikely to succeed, and finally, gun control laws are racially motivated. Through the use of what I believe combined with historical examples, my goal is to persuade a “Gun Grabber” on why the government cannot take away my guns.

America has always prided itself on being the land of the free. Our national Constitution and Bill of Rights have ensured that the people of America maintain their basic rights. Nevertheless, many of the rights guaranteed in these historic documents are often the subject of heated debate. The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination, the First Amendment’s protection of speech and petitioning activity, all of these issues have been subject to contentious arguments in courts of law and the courts of public opinion. Of late, however, the most lengthy, argumentative and noisy debates have focused on gun control. Some people think that

The second amendment is a very important thing in U.S. history. Without the second Amendment we would have never had such great things as Bacon 's rebellion, or the Civil war. It all actuality though the second amendment is in our constitution, because we used guns to rebel against the monarchy of England. After that we determined that the ability to own guns was a right, so that people would have the right to rebel incase America became a dictatorship. People still hold value to those laws today.In 2016 it is a different pitcher today, last year there were over 372 mass shootings. We live in a world where I, could go and buy a gun, and point it at a crowd of people and hold down the trigger until enough people are dead. We live in a world of little background checks. We live in a world where people value the second amendment over the natural right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that were taken away from everybody shot. We live in a world where 20 six year olds can get killed and people tell us to not politicize it. We live in a cycle of shooting, grief, no coverage repeat. America is behind in the need to ban assault rifles. People will continue to die unless something is solved. With enough logic, one should be able to come to the conclusion that the right to bear arms, is wrong.

"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.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely proclaims a purpose. It does not limit nor expand the scope of the sentence “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The clause’s text demonstrates that it brings an individual right to keep and bear arms (Bill of

The second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of people to bear arms and was adopted in 1791. It guarantees all Americans "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is more described as supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Former Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger writes an essay regarding “The Right To Bear Arms,” that originally appeared in the Parade Magazine in the 1990’s that questions if “The Right To Bear Arms,” is an outdated idea. Burger argument is that the gun control would lower if handguns were lowered. He also talks about the”Militias,” which is an army that protects the security of the state. Our “State Militias,” in our time, serves as a huge national defense.

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