im doing a essay in Social studies and the Q: is Should anything be done to the second amendment right to bear arms
Answers:
The second amendment to the United States Constitution should not be changed. Citizens of the United States have the right to keep and bear arms because of this amendment, and I, for one, would like to see that right remain.
My fear would be that if that right were up for debate, it would be forfeited to the lobbyists and bleeding heart clubs.
No, it should not be changed. And the correct abbreviation for second is 2nd, not "2and".
The ammendment should be changed to clarify the definition of "A well regulated militia." Other than that, no.
It should be clarified in language to clearly communicate either (1) the right to bear arms for the purpose of national defense (militia) or (2) the right of the individual to bear arms. As written, it's a tug-of-war among varying interpretations.
It should NOT be changed - just like any of the other 9 amendments of the Bill of Rights . The BoR identifies those rights that are considered to be pre-existing (ie, God-granted and guaranteed - not granted by the Constitution).
I think it shouldn't change. My brother and family live in the South and hunting is a BIG part of their life. I would never want to take that from them.
The crooks are going to be crooks and get guns regardless of what laws are passed. Where there is a will, there is a way.
It should not be changed.
No, the reason that the amendment was given was to give power and leverage to the people in order to defend themselves.
It should never be change,it is a basic right of Americans to own a gun if they wanted to.If a country wants to take your guns away they must be going to do something you might want to shoot them for!"Dr. Madd" my friend said this and it's true.
Yes, it should remain the same. I wrote the following short essay for a secular humanist publication on this very subject:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution specifically says: “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.”
My contention, based on the sentence structure of the Second Amendment, the definition of “Militia” in the 18th century, and the way of life in 18th century America, is that the Amendment does indeed protect the right of an individual to possess firearms.
How so? The sentence as it reads does not restrict the lawful ownership of guns to members of the militia. It merely gives that particular rationale for not using the Constitution to attempt to take away that right. There are many other good reasons to own guns; those who drafted this particular amendment chose the militia argument because it had to do with government service.
The definition of “Militia” was very broad in 18th century America. In effect, it included all able-bodied adult males within certain broad age limits. This definition excluded women, the elderly, youth, and the infirm. All other men were expected to own at leas one rifle, to practice shooting and close-order drills with their neighbors, and to be prepared to answer the call to arms when given by the appropriate public officials. This definition of “Militia” indicates that the Second Amendment existed not only to place a well-honored freedom under Constitutional protection, but also to ensure a large supply of well-trained, well-armed soldiers.
And finally, 18th century America was an overwhelmingly rural society. Save for a few small cities on the coast, the new nation was a frontier (in the American sense of the word). As we know from Westerns, a man with a gun represented the Law—and the Law may be legislated and executed by him off-the-cuff when need be. On the frontier, people hunt, engage in target practice and competitions, and defend their home with guns. From these facts, we can intuit that the drafters of the Second Amendment would have been wholly incapable of even dreaming of a future society without guns; they were so much a part of everyday life.
I believe that those who wish to make the purchase, ownership, and use of guns illegal in America would have to first gather support from millions of Americans in an effort to ratify a new Constitutional amendment abrogating the Second Amendment. That’s the only way they could possibly achieve their ends legally. Could this be done? Should it? I seriously doubt it.
I suspect that this is why most gun control advocates avoid the issue and attempt to get their way through legislation. The only gun control supporter I know of who called for repeal of the Second Amendment was Michael Kinsley, late of CNN’s “Crossfire.” (Ironic name, yes?)
This was a brave move on his part. He was no hypocrite. But, I wonder how many gun control advocates winced when they heard him say his piece?
It’s likely that America, which has ceased being a frontier society many generations ago, will never repeal the Second Amendment, even though the percentage of people owning and using guns will continue to drop as we become more citified and suburbanized. That’s fine with me. This merely means that not all coercive force rests in government hands.
Hope this helps
Should it be changed? No. However, you may want to point out that it is the only part of the Bill of Rights which really has an explanation of why the right is being granted. There is no definition in the 1st Amendment as to what speech is, or establishment of religion. There is nothing in the 4th telling us what an unreasonable search is, or why the people should be protected from them, or why the 3rd prohibits soldiers from being quartered in homes. Yet the 2nd says that the right to bear arms is being granted because a well-regulated militia is necessary. Why did this and only this Amendment need a self-contained explanation for the right being granted? And why do so many originalists ignore this part of the amendment?
NO it shouldn't be changed...It gives the people the right to feed there family and to defend them also to defend your nation from outside invaders and from a corrupted government within our nation. Thank God and the NRA that we still got the 2nd amendment...
It's done fine for a couple hundred years, why change it now. If you change it, you'll make victims of innocent citizens when the can't defend themselves.
The 2nd Amendment right to bear arms should be restored and all the victim disarmament laws should be repealed. While it is true that more guns lowers crime and that gun bans on school campuses lead to school shootings (though they aren't as big a cause as the use of those murder drugs people call antidepressants), that's beside the point of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is designed so that the people can exercise their right to overthrow the government at any time they wish. Any would-be dictator realizes that he has to ban guns or he risks being overthrown by the people. That's why Hitler worked to ban guns immediately after he was elected, first banning them for Jews, and then banning them for all citizens whose loyalty wasn't unquestioned (meaning anybody who wasn't a member of the Nazis). That's why the mass murdering tyrant Bill Clinton who waged war on his own people at Waco (which was an arson attack by a group of government terrorists who attacked because the people at Waco were purchasing guns) and Ruby Ridge and then had a fed pretend to be one anti-Clinton and blow up a government building with children in it, decided to pass gun control laws. That's why the terrorist organization known as the US Military decided to pass gun control when they went into Iraq to terrorize the Iraqis.
The only reason why "gun control," more properly referred to as "victim disarmament" or "dictatorship protection" has been on the national agenda for the last decade or so is because the Feds are violating rights moreso now than ever and they're legitimately scared that some subset of the American people will toss them from power (which they would deserve, considering that the British got overthrown for far fewer crimes).
When I was in high school they changed the dress code to ban tank tops. I organized a protest on the grounds it violated our second amendment right to "bare arms"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment