Pros And Cons Of The Second Amendment

As guns are generally used not for harm but for defense, and criminals can still get them no matter what, there should not be harsher laws on gun control. Guns should be something that citizens should have a right to own, and they should continue to have this right as time goes on. If guns were made illegal, it would put people in danger as criminals could obtain them anyway. With the developments of new technology our word is not as safe as it used to be, in light of this, guns should be a valuable access to the population or our society will face a rapid

In the second amendment the right to bear arms is allowing you to carry a weapon. A militia is necessary for the security of a free state. The right of the the people to keep and bear arms should not be broken. This amendment allows you to protect yourself. Different states have different rules of this amendment.

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.

More specifically, I believe that gun violence will always be an issue whether they are banned or not. If someone plans on hurting someone, they will not care about rules. For example, Guns are very easy for people to buy, but how is the seller going to know what they plan to do with it. It is not like they are going to say that they are going to kill someone with it.

So this law gives us the right to have privacy and freedom in our own home. I personally agree with this law to an extent because I do believe people should have their privacy in their own home and not constantly get raided by the police. Without this law I think our encounters with the police would be way different. An example is if you are not doing anything illegal you should have no worries of getting raided but without this law the government can make routine searches through houses if they wanted too. That totally violates your privacy as a person.

Moreover, if the ownership of guns is limited, it will help prevent unnecessary deaths and violence caused by gun owners, especially students. Gun ownership should be totally controlled and regulated by the government because they will help in limiting the number of people who own guns. When gun

After doing research on the Second Amendment I am still leaning towards both sides of this yes i do believe it’s a good idea to have a gun for your own protection and then i am aware of the risks of people obtaining weapons. Now a days you don 't know what to expect and if you will ever encounter a situation where a gun would be needed. Police officers can’t be everywhere at all times many lives could be saved if people had protection in their

This is a second and deeper reason that the defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense of liberty. Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for human self-control, but this approach will not wash. It is the human moral that will save us from violence, not the presence or absence of

As Pollitt says in The Nation, “… without a gun, it’s difficult to kill and injure a whole crowd of people, no matter how much you’d like to” (484.) Background checks are necessary to keep guns out of the hands of people who will do harm with them. Background checks should not be limited to stores. More should be included as well on the background checks being done. There is no reason they should not also be used in purchasing arsenal.

First and foremost, banning guns will not stop criminals from obtaining and committing crimes with them. Furthermore, guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Lastly, guns prevent the government from becoming tyrannical and oppressive. At first, one may think that banning guns would be a superb solution to the growing problem of gun violence.

Being trained by a firearms instructor can help users know the importance of firearm safety and how to properly use firearms. Firearms are to be used for self-protection and war. Also taking away firearms is against the 2nd amendment according to the United States Constitution--"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. " Therefore, banning firearms is against the United States Constitution. In conclusion firearms are to not be banned and should remain in the hands of responsible, trained, citizens.

The best contention for the insurance of the privilege to have arms is the Second Amendment. The motivation behind the alteration, and the whole Constitution, is to build up specific rights that can 't be annulled or changed by our legislature. Be that as it may, the wording of the alteration has been a wellspring of level headed discussion. The principle contention is that the revision accommodates a local army, and that the "right to keep and remain battle ready" is alluding to civilian army individuals as it were. However, the correction likewise expresses that it is the privilege of "the general population" to keep and carry weapons.

The Second Amendment protects one of America 's most controversial freedoms: the right to bear arms. It is controversial because not everyone agrees that people should have the right to bear arms. They think that if the wrong person is carrying a gun something bad can happen, but when you are carrying a gun you have the right to your own protection and it is probably for the best to be able to carry a gun in case something bad happens. It’s a right in the bills because everyone has the right to carry their own form of protection and for some people that is a firearm. Some people also use it for getting food when hunting.

We the people should stand up against gun violence. Life is a natural right. Killing is against the law, so why is it we give the "proper authorities" the right to kill those they feel threatened by? Why is it that it 's ok to kill someone if they did something against the rules? Killing them won 't change anything!

What Does the 2nd Amendment Mean to You? When asked what the second amendment is, one would normally answer “the right to bear arms”, which is true. This right is guaranteed to U.S. Citizens under our Constitution. Due to recent events and circumstances, this freedom and right that has been granted is now threatened by those who feel that it is too “dangerous” to protect yourself. Being that I myself nor any of my family owns a firearm, one might speculate that we do not feel the need for protection.