The first reason why the Second Amendment should not be abolished is because we, as citizens have the right to defend ourselves. Word for word, 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” (Constitute). That means that citizens have the right to own a firearm to defend from the government and/or criminals. In a perfect world, law enforcement would be able to keep order to make gun ownership unnecessary.
Either from other countries, or manufacture weapons themselves. For Example, in the article, “The Assault Weapon Ban Should Not Be Reinstated”, the author states, “ Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws on earth, yet a large number of weapons are smuggled in from other places.” Take this quote for example, mexico has strict gun laws, but there is still weapons getting into Mexico. People in America would do that. Another example from the article “Argument Against Gun Control”, the author states, “This is the newest iteration of the popular talking point that gun laws cannot work because criminals won 't follow them.
The United States Supreme court has also established many rulings pertaining to guns. In 2008 and 2010 the court made many decisions in favor of guns. Cases like (District of Columbia et al. v. Heller and The McDonald v. City of Chicago). In both cases the judges decided that guns are an individual right.
However, there are many facts and points made about how the amendment is supposed to be treated and how guns are supposed to be used for both individual rights and militia. In fact, “The US Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that this amendment referred to the individual’s right to own a gun for self-defense. Other federal courts have ruled that this amendment pertains only to the rights to form and maintain a militia. Advocates of gun control point out that the writers of the Constitution could not have imagined some of the weapons that are currently available or the amount of damage that could be inflicted by one person armed with one of these guns. Gun control opponents insist there is a constitutional right for individuals to have weapons and vehemently argue against any restrictions
They believe that after the traumatic event that caused them the have this pain that something must be done to ban all firearms regardless of who uses them. Everyone fall on this spectrum and that is the issue no one can be one hundred percent right meaning someone will be unhappy with the result. From constitution being first ratified to today the idea of gun control has still existed. Gun control is the regulation of guns through their purchasing, owning, and use. As such starting with the second amendment of the United States constitution which says, “A well regulated Militia, […and] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
Therefore, Sanford Levinson, a Constitution Scholar of the University of Texas refers to Article V as an “iron cage” which locks in any reforms needed to the Constitution regarding important political and social issues (Black, MinnPost.com). Notably, one significant example regarding the difficulty of amending to the constitution serves to be the Equal Rights Amendment, which failed due to the requirements addressed
The United States Constitution was constructed from a set of rules, also known as amendments, which were written with the great intention of securing the basic rights of all United States citizens and as such, it serves as an outline for the laws of the land by dictating the powers of the people and what is acceptable under the watch of the United States government. These rights are considered a privilege afforded to the people and should be exercised as indicated within the document. The history behind the induction of the second amendment began in the nineteenth century when in the summer of 1787, the Framers (included US Presidents) conspired with one another to write the articles of the United States Constitution during the constitutional convention. Fifty-five men drafted this document which serves as the blueprint of the United States government today. The motivation to construct and devise such a plan was created in order to give American citizens the absolute rights to proper enjoyment over their own lives.
If have ewer gun restrictions causes more violent crime, why would many states with the lowest homicide rates also have relatively few gun control laws. The data also shows there is no connection to higher gun ownership and greater amounts of crime. There are only 6 states in which 50% of household own firearms. If gun-control supporters are correct about the dangers of guns, these states should have significantly higher crime rates, but the opposite is true. Data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show four of those six states ranked in the top half of all states for having the lowest homicide rates.
This is not the only side of the argument though, there are opposers to enforcing gun laws that believe that there are already enough laws for buying guns and what you can do with them. The opposers also believe that we should focus more of our efforts on the mental health of the people instead of the guns they use. The debate on gun control is a very pressing matter. Some believe that the laws on gun control should be stricter, while others believe the laws should be looser for self-defense and hunting.
Gun control laws should be reinforced and practiced in all states regardless of how many shootings take place. Furthermore, suicide rates have increased, and in general there is no actual control over suicide with gun
There would be a huge debate about the Second Amendment and opponents will argue about how the Second Amendment also referred to individuals in America and how the amendment protects individual gun ownership. Chairperson of Revolution PAC, Lawrence Hunter, stated, "The Founders understood that the right to bear laws is as primary and as essential to maintaining liberty. The rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty described in the Bill of Rights.” Supporters might argue and state how its original meaning was intended to protect the militia, but opponents believe otherwise. Opponents of more female protection might say that Gun control laws do not deter crime; gun ownership deters crime.
And there are so many reasons why. 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 is the second amendment of the United States Constitution which was written in 1791 and has been debated ever since. Conceal and carry is the practice of carrying a weapon in
The second amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. It was ratified on December 17, 1791. According to laws.com, “As passed by the Congress: 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 ratified by the 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 second amendment, like all the other first ten amendments, is a part of the Bill of Rights, which was meant to keep the people as free as possible.
The District of Columbia (D.C.) enacted in 1976 the, Firearms Control Regulations act of 1975, this legislation prohibited individuals from possessing firearms that are currently not registered as well as banning the registration of handguns following 1975. Though the police chief may authorize the issuing of licenses with a validation of one year, this provision requires that individuals who possess a legally obtained firearm, disassemble their weapon and bind it with a trigger lock ("District of Columbia v. Heller", Oyez). The issue at hand, which is the restriction of Second Amendment rights, began when D.C. special policeman Dick Heller, in the hopes that he could possess a firearm while at home, was refused a license when he attempted
The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create a dynamic, "living"