Essay Against The Second Amendment

The question on whether the 2nd Amendment in the U.S. should be changed or not has become a widely discussed and argued topic as of recent, due to recurring incidents of shootings occurring on U.S. soil by its own inhabitants. While many would be in support of the right to bear arms, including myself, I do believe that the current gun laws need to be made more restrictive than they are in their current state, for the sake of the country and the safety of its people. I’m well aware that I am not a U.S. citizen and that I have no say in what decisions are made there regarding the country’s constitution, but I feel that what I have to say is shared by many of America’s people and that it’s not only Americans that are affected by guns but also those who are visiting the country from abroad. There are many problems regarding America’s very unrestrictive gun laws at present, whether it’s the fact that there is no federal minimum age for possession of a long gun, or the fact that individuals don’t

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms. When the Second Amendment was written it was for the right to arm oneself as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, gun advocates proclaim that guns are for the right to self-defense. Some people try to participate and uphold the law. We have seen how guns in the hands of children can cause fatal accidents and people have committed mindless crimes leading to

A weapon in the wrongs hands is the maximum danger humanity can face. Nowadays, violence and delinquency in society are viewed as the maximum problem solver. Humanity is full of chaos; hate and envy seize our souls. Guns are the ultimate security for some citizens but for others, these add to a feeling of defenselessness. Throughout history, any topic related to guns means a plethora of problems.

Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people.

This law is a clear violation of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The wording of the Second Amendment is clear and does not mention anything regarding regulations. We as the court must ignore the

The Second Amendment protects the right of people to keep and bear arms. This amendment was a controversial among different people in the government. It was between letting the people keep their weapons or to not let the people keep their weapons. This amendment was important to the framers of the Constitution because it provided the country with a well-regulated militia. 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.

14th Amendment Due Process Clause It certainly is remarkable that the United States Constitution refers to “due process” twice. Therefore, the 5th Amendment’s allusions to “due process” state that nobody can be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. "

The 26th amendment states “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” My opinion on the 26 amendment is that the voting age should be lowered to 16 instead of 18. I also believe the 2nd amendment should be change which also expresses “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.” Changing the 26th amendment could gradually increase society being safer. I feel the 26th amendment should be change because people of teenage years seem to know just as much about politics as much as older people.

Updating the Amendment 2.0 The right to bear arms has been a favoured constitutional law since its establishment in 1791, but as more gun related violence and accidents occur, there has been increasing debate on whether or not guns should be banned in the US altogether, and if not, what regulations should be required for the purchase and handling of them. While guns should not be completely banned from the country, the rules and regulations of gun laws should be tightened. In the 2nd amendment, it clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While this statement still holds true, the evolution of firearms and how they have become more dangerous throughout the years is a clear sign of why the laws should be changed.

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) The amendments were put into place to protect the rights and civil liberties of all American citizens from the federal government. However, prior to the fourteenth amendment, there was no certainty with the constitution. The constitution did not state in a clear enough way who was protected under it and exactly what rights you had as an American Citizen. The 14th amendment was in response to the just passed thirteenth amendment, which ended slavery in all of the southern states.

According to the Second Amendment, “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 specifically states that “the right of the people to keep

In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause states “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century, as properly but not overly regulated (Roleff 69).

The second amendment states that people have a right to bear arms under a well-regulated militia. This amendment was added to the Bill of Rights because the Americans had just finished fighting The American Revolution with the British government for independence-- Gun control by the British was one of the catalysts of this war. With the revolution fresh in mind, the Americans had registered that there was a need to unite and form a union; however, some Americans felt that a union could result in something similar to the tyranny that the British had imposed on them. They were hesitant of placing the power on a small handful of people-- The second amendment helped take some power from the government and give it to the people.

Heller, in which Breyer disagreed with the majority and believed that the District of Colombia, did in fact have full permission to limit handgun laws. In his dissenting opinion, being the pragmatist that he is, Breyer states that the Second Amendment only provides context for militia-related, not self-related defense and concludes this, in turn, means that this amendment does not disable government intervention in pursuing these laws. Because Breyer is not an originalist of any sort, his dissenting opinion is one that tells of this nature and the belief that the Amendments do not provide

The Fourteenth Amendment, which was