Mason Richter
The Second Amendment
“The Right To Bear Arms”
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy.[1]” these words were said by Edward Abbey, a famous American author and essayist of the 20th century. Many people interpret the Second Amendment differently. I interpret the Second Amendment as being a good addition to the Constitution and I don’t think it should be changed or repealed. I want to find out whether or not we, the people, should really have the right to bear arms.
There are many terms I will use in this essay that may be confusing. Some have to do with firearms are: Discharge- to fire or shoot[2], brandish- to flourish or display[3], and conceal- to remove from observation[4]. Some terms used in politics and history are: Ratify- to formally approve[5], federalist- a member of a former political party in the United States who favored a strong centralized federal government[6], anti-federalist- a member of a former political party in the United States who opposed a strong centralized federal government[7], militia- a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers[8], repeal- cancel officially[9], and gun control- efforts to regulate or control sales of guns[10]. Also, there are two organizations, they are: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)- an organization founded in 1920 to defend the civil rights of all U.S. citizens[11], and the National Rifle Association (NRA)- a powerful lobby that advocates the right to own and bear arms and rejects any gun regulation by the government[12]
When I first started Proteus, I believed the Second Amendment was a good thing. I did not know much about it, but I did think citizens having firearms prevents crime. I thought every citizen should have the right to possess and own a firearm and it shouldn’t be taken away. I believed when citizens have the right to bear arms, they were all a lot safer. When we have firearms with us, we can protect ourselves, our family, our property, and others.
What would happen if the Second Amendment were appealed? It would have a huge effect, especially on U.S. citizens. There are about 200,000,000 firearms in the U.S., that means about half of the people in the U.S. would be influenced by a repeal of the Second Amendment[13]. However, would this affect the U.S. in a good or bad way? Should we, or should we not, have the right to bear arms? The term, “right to bear arms,” has many different meanings. Some believe the right to bear arms was only given to the militia, not the citizens. Some believe when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they meant for some of the parts to be able to be changed along with the changing times. If this were the case, the Constitution could be changed along with the changing times.
There are very strong views regarding the Second Amendment. Usually, there are only two main views. One is the Second Amendment should be limited further to ensure public safety. The other is the Second Amendment should be kept the same in order to ensure public safety. One controversial issue is accidental death in children caused by firearms. One side says children are not smart enough to realize what harm could come to them if they play with a firearm. The other side argues it is the responsibility of the parent to keep their firearms away from their children. They just have to be one step ahead of their child. Another issue is some say firearms are to easy to obtain. They say it is easy for someone to just walk in off the street and buy a firearm, but when a person buys a firearm, there is a background search on the buyer to make sure they are not a felon, they don’t have a history of violence, or have a mental disorder. It is not as easy as they think to buy a firearm.
The first position of the Second Amendment is against gun control. Their solution is to stop limiting the peoples’ right to bear arms. They believe that taking away the peoples’ arms will not stop the criminals. The criminals will not give away their firearms, only the law abiding citizens will. The criminals will also still be able to get new firearms through illegal sources. They will always be able to get firearms illegally, just like with drugs. If a criminal really wants something, he or she will always be able to get it. Taking away Second Amendment related rights will only make the criminals’ jobs easier. So, those who are against gun control believe taking away gun rights from the people is only taking them away from those who need firearms the most.
The second position of the Second Amendment is for stricter gun control. Their solution is to bring harsher laws regarding the Second Amendment into act. If we limit the Second Amendment more, then the criminals won’t be able to get firearms. There will be less crime on the streets if there aren’t any firearms. So, those who are for gun control believe taking away firearms will help to protect the citizens from criminals and reduce the crime rate.
The second position on the Second Amendment believe they have found some flaws in the position one solution to the crime rate regarding the Second Amendment. They disagree with those who are against gun control in a lot of ways. They believe not taking away Second Amendment rights will only bring the crime rate up. They say letting the citizens keep firearms is only endangering them. The only way to bring crime rate down would be to take away firearms from everyone.
The first position on the Second Amendment believe they have found some flaws in the position two solution to the crime rate regarding the Second Amendment. They disagree with those who are for gun control in a number of ways. They say taking away the Second Amendment rights will only disarm the citizens who need firearms to protect themselves and families. They say disarming citizens will only bring crime rate up and will give the criminals an easier time.
I’m trying to find out exactly what the Second Amendment means. The Second Amendment officially 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.” [14]The Second Amendment’s history goes back to 1775, the start of the Revolutionary War. When the King of England began to treat the citizens of the colonies poorly, the colonies revolted. They were only able to do so because they had weapons to use. If there had been a law taking away the citizens firearms, we probably wouldn’t even be the United States today. We would most likely still be part of Great Britain. This is one of the most important reasons why people believe the founders of the Constitution wanted the citizens of the U.S. to be able to bear arms.
There are many people who helped to make the Second Amendment what it is today. The most important person is James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment; in fact, he was the major author of the entire Bill of Rights, which was written during the Revolutionary War. If the Revolutionary War had not happened, we probably wouldn’t have the same laws regarding the Second Amendment today. There could either be lesser or greater laws on firearm ownership and use.
When the Revolutionary War took place, it only affected two places, the United States and Great Britain. It affected Great Britain, because they were the most powerful nation in the world, before thirteen small colonies grouped together and beat them. The greatest power in the world had been defeated. The Revolutionary War affected the U.S. because it gave the U.S. its freedom. When we won the Revolutionary War, we won our freedom, and became the new strongest power in the world.
There are many laws regarding the Second Amendment, like The Gun Control Act of 1968, which is an act that keeps people who have been convicted of a felony, are fugitives, are mentally challenged, are addicted to a drug, are not a resident of the state in which they are buying the gun, are an illegal alien, have been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, have a restraining order against them, or who have been convicted of domestic violence, from buying a gun . The Civil Rights Act of 1968 is an act that says you cannot discriminate against people of a different race, color, religion, or national origin (meaning you cannot refuse to sell them a firearm unless they are or have done one of the things in the Gun Control Act of 1968). The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Assault Weapons Ban) is an act that banned the possession, manufacture and importation of assault rifles. When assault weapons were banned in the U.S., there were a few things a firearm could not have anymore. No folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonets, threaded barrels (a barrel that can have a silencer, flash suppressor, extended barrel, etc. attached to it), or grenade launchers were permitted. The Crime Control Act made it illegal to have a firearm in a school zone. The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act made it illegal to make or import armor piercing bullets. The Federal Firearms Act made it illegal to sell or export firearms unless you purchased a Federal Firearms License. The National Firearms Act levied on a $200.00 tax and required the purchaser of the gun to fill out paperwork (regarding the background of the purchaser) approved by the Treasury Department.
There are many organizations involved with the Second Amendment. One of them is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA is an organization, which is against gun control. They want to prove to everyone the Second Amendment really does give the citizens of the U.S. the right to bear arms, and it is legal to own a firearm. They are even trying to make the number of child death from firearms go down. They are doing this by introducing a new program to schools. The Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program comes to classrooms from pre-k – 5 and teaches the students about firearms and how to be safe around them. Another organization is the law enforcement agency, or the police. The law enforcement agency is a group of police officers controlled by the state. Their job is to protect their communities. They are involved with the Second Amendment because they carry firearms and their job to protect those who are not able to protect themselves.
I interviewed a policeman named Paul McGinniss. He is a retired California Highway Patrol Officer, and also taught hunter safety classes in Ukiah, as well as being the President of the Gun Club. He is a strong believer in the Second Amendment. Paul McGinniss feels the Second Amendment was a good addition to the Constitution. He also believes the laws of the Second Amendment we have today are the ones we need. He thinks the Second amendment should not be interpreted any different than it is today. He believes each state should be able to say what they think the laws on the Second Amendment should be in their state. He doesn’t think the idea of one law on the Second Amendment throughout the country is a good idea. So, his main idea on the Second Amendment is it is a good addition to the Constitution and the laws we have on it now are very good.
I interviewed another man named Eric Rennert. He is a public defender in Ukiah. Although Eric Rennert does support the Second Amendment, he thinks it does need some improvements. He feels that the Second Amendment was made so it could be changed. He believes when our founding fathers made the Constitution, they made it so it could be changed along with the changing times. Mr. Rennert also thinks we should have one law throughout the country on the Second Amendment, as apposed to several laws within each state. So, his main idea of the Second Amendment was, although he believed in it, he thought it still needed some improvements.
One current event regarding the Second Amendment was a shooting in Colorado called, “The Columbine Shooting.” The Columbine Shooting was at a high school in Columbine, Colorado. What happened was two students brought two propane bombs to school and put them in the cafeteria. They decided to wait outside and shoot any kids running out of the school. However, the bombs did not explode. So, the two students went into the school to find out what went wrong. They brought many firearms with them and they discharged at many students, either wounding or killing them. It was a huge event and it greatly affected many peoples’ beliefs on the Second Amendment.[15] The Columbine shooting had only affected the U.S, but it was heard worldwide. It affected the U.S. because it caused a lot of people in the U.S. harm, but it also brought to attention the issues with the Second Amendment. It also may have changed a lot of peoples’ beliefs.
There was another important event that had happened in Australia recently. In Australia, gun rights had been taken away from the citizens. About six hundred forty thousand, three hundred eighty-one firearms were taken away from the public. Since their gun rights were taken away, statistics show armed robberies there have gone up forty-four percent, homicides have gone up three point two percent, assaults have gone up eight point six percent, and in Victoria, Australia, homicides have gone up three hundred percent!!![16]. Also, this new law has cost about five hundred million dollars! That’s money right out of the taxpayers’ wallets!
Very recently, there was a change of office in the White House. President Barrack Obama was sworn in just a few months ago. There have been many rumors going on since then about gun control. A lot of people believe President Obama may take away some of our gun rights or raise a tax on ammunition and firearms. There has been a massive increase in gun sales since then. People think they should buy firearms now before any law is passed making it harder for them to get the firearms. President Obama is known not to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment[17].
Statistics in the world show that guns are used eighty times more for self – defense than for violent actions toward others. This means guns are used in self – defense six thousand, eight hundred fifty times a day. So, if guns are used in self defense eighty times more than for violence toward others, that would mean guns are used for violent actions toward others only eighty-five times in one day[18].
If you believe citizens having firearms could be dangerous to you and others, then you should be even more afraid of doctors. The number of accidental deaths caused by each doctor is about zero point one hundred seventy-one where as the number of deaths caused by each gun owner is zero point zero, zero, zero, zero one hundred eighty-eight. So, the chances of someone dying by the hands of a doctor are a lot higher than the chances of you dying by a gun related death[19].
After doing all of this research and writing this report, my opinion has not changed. My opinion on the Second Amendment has only been strengthened. I still believe every citizen should always have the right to bear arms, but now there are more reasons why I believe this. I believe the laws we have in effect now regarding the Second Amendment are what we need. I do not think we need to limit or change the Second Amendment in other ways than we already have.
As I researched the Second Amendment my opinion slowly changed. About the time I had finished my notes, I had a good feeling of what I believed. When I was a bout halfway through my Proteus Report, I decided I still believed in the Second Amendment. My opinion hadn’t changed much, but it did a little. I now had more reasons why I believed in the Second Amendment. Before, I didn’t know why I believed in the Second Amendment I just did. Now, I know why.
My opinion on fixing the Second Amendment is to stop putting laws into effect to limit it. The laws we have now are good enough to ensure public safety. I believe having the right to bear arms not only protects citizens from danger but they also prevent danger from occurring in the first place. Any criminal would think twice about attacking someone if they knew that person might have a firearm.
I also believe an important issue that ties into the Second Amendment is firearm safety and regulations. Gun ownership is currently governed state and county wide, and without this, the Second Amendment is too open for interpretation. I believe people should have the right to bear arms, but only if they are qualified, educated, and regulated to carry those firearms. As everybody says, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
[1] http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html
2 http://dictionary.reference.com/
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[5] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[6] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[7] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[8] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[9] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[10] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[11] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[12] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[13] http://members.tripod.com/~HawkseyesA/gunsin.htm#SEC%20B
[14] Armento Beverly et al. “A More Perfect Union.” Boston, MAS: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991.
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
[16]http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
[17] CNN News, November 15, 2008
[18] http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
[19] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_drug_related_deaths_in_the_US_each_year
“The Right To Bear Arms”
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy.[1]” these words were said by Edward Abbey, a famous American author and essayist of the 20th century. Many people interpret the Second Amendment differently. I interpret the Second Amendment as being a good addition to the Constitution and I don’t think it should be changed or repealed. I want to find out whether or not we, the people, should really have the right to bear arms.
There are many terms I will use in this essay that may be confusing. Some have to do with firearms are: Discharge- to fire or shoot[2], brandish- to flourish or display[3], and conceal- to remove from observation[4]. Some terms used in politics and history are: Ratify- to formally approve[5], federalist- a member of a former political party in the United States who favored a strong centralized federal government[6], anti-federalist- a member of a former political party in the United States who opposed a strong centralized federal government[7], militia- a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers[8], repeal- cancel officially[9], and gun control- efforts to regulate or control sales of guns[10]. Also, there are two organizations, they are: American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)- an organization founded in 1920 to defend the civil rights of all U.S. citizens[11], and the National Rifle Association (NRA)- a powerful lobby that advocates the right to own and bear arms and rejects any gun regulation by the government[12]
When I first started Proteus, I believed the Second Amendment was a good thing. I did not know much about it, but I did think citizens having firearms prevents crime. I thought every citizen should have the right to possess and own a firearm and it shouldn’t be taken away. I believed when citizens have the right to bear arms, they were all a lot safer. When we have firearms with us, we can protect ourselves, our family, our property, and others.
What would happen if the Second Amendment were appealed? It would have a huge effect, especially on U.S. citizens. There are about 200,000,000 firearms in the U.S., that means about half of the people in the U.S. would be influenced by a repeal of the Second Amendment[13]. However, would this affect the U.S. in a good or bad way? Should we, or should we not, have the right to bear arms? The term, “right to bear arms,” has many different meanings. Some believe the right to bear arms was only given to the militia, not the citizens. Some believe when the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, they meant for some of the parts to be able to be changed along with the changing times. If this were the case, the Constitution could be changed along with the changing times.
There are very strong views regarding the Second Amendment. Usually, there are only two main views. One is the Second Amendment should be limited further to ensure public safety. The other is the Second Amendment should be kept the same in order to ensure public safety. One controversial issue is accidental death in children caused by firearms. One side says children are not smart enough to realize what harm could come to them if they play with a firearm. The other side argues it is the responsibility of the parent to keep their firearms away from their children. They just have to be one step ahead of their child. Another issue is some say firearms are to easy to obtain. They say it is easy for someone to just walk in off the street and buy a firearm, but when a person buys a firearm, there is a background search on the buyer to make sure they are not a felon, they don’t have a history of violence, or have a mental disorder. It is not as easy as they think to buy a firearm.
The first position of the Second Amendment is against gun control. Their solution is to stop limiting the peoples’ right to bear arms. They believe that taking away the peoples’ arms will not stop the criminals. The criminals will not give away their firearms, only the law abiding citizens will. The criminals will also still be able to get new firearms through illegal sources. They will always be able to get firearms illegally, just like with drugs. If a criminal really wants something, he or she will always be able to get it. Taking away Second Amendment related rights will only make the criminals’ jobs easier. So, those who are against gun control believe taking away gun rights from the people is only taking them away from those who need firearms the most.
The second position of the Second Amendment is for stricter gun control. Their solution is to bring harsher laws regarding the Second Amendment into act. If we limit the Second Amendment more, then the criminals won’t be able to get firearms. There will be less crime on the streets if there aren’t any firearms. So, those who are for gun control believe taking away firearms will help to protect the citizens from criminals and reduce the crime rate.
The second position on the Second Amendment believe they have found some flaws in the position one solution to the crime rate regarding the Second Amendment. They disagree with those who are against gun control in a lot of ways. They believe not taking away Second Amendment rights will only bring the crime rate up. They say letting the citizens keep firearms is only endangering them. The only way to bring crime rate down would be to take away firearms from everyone.
The first position on the Second Amendment believe they have found some flaws in the position two solution to the crime rate regarding the Second Amendment. They disagree with those who are for gun control in a number of ways. They say taking away the Second Amendment rights will only disarm the citizens who need firearms to protect themselves and families. They say disarming citizens will only bring crime rate up and will give the criminals an easier time.
I’m trying to find out exactly what the Second Amendment means. The Second Amendment officially 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.” [14]The Second Amendment’s history goes back to 1775, the start of the Revolutionary War. When the King of England began to treat the citizens of the colonies poorly, the colonies revolted. They were only able to do so because they had weapons to use. If there had been a law taking away the citizens firearms, we probably wouldn’t even be the United States today. We would most likely still be part of Great Britain. This is one of the most important reasons why people believe the founders of the Constitution wanted the citizens of the U.S. to be able to bear arms.
There are many people who helped to make the Second Amendment what it is today. The most important person is James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment; in fact, he was the major author of the entire Bill of Rights, which was written during the Revolutionary War. If the Revolutionary War had not happened, we probably wouldn’t have the same laws regarding the Second Amendment today. There could either be lesser or greater laws on firearm ownership and use.
When the Revolutionary War took place, it only affected two places, the United States and Great Britain. It affected Great Britain, because they were the most powerful nation in the world, before thirteen small colonies grouped together and beat them. The greatest power in the world had been defeated. The Revolutionary War affected the U.S. because it gave the U.S. its freedom. When we won the Revolutionary War, we won our freedom, and became the new strongest power in the world.
There are many laws regarding the Second Amendment, like The Gun Control Act of 1968, which is an act that keeps people who have been convicted of a felony, are fugitives, are mentally challenged, are addicted to a drug, are not a resident of the state in which they are buying the gun, are an illegal alien, have been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, have a restraining order against them, or who have been convicted of domestic violence, from buying a gun . The Civil Rights Act of 1968 is an act that says you cannot discriminate against people of a different race, color, religion, or national origin (meaning you cannot refuse to sell them a firearm unless they are or have done one of the things in the Gun Control Act of 1968). The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (Assault Weapons Ban) is an act that banned the possession, manufacture and importation of assault rifles. When assault weapons were banned in the U.S., there were a few things a firearm could not have anymore. No folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonets, threaded barrels (a barrel that can have a silencer, flash suppressor, extended barrel, etc. attached to it), or grenade launchers were permitted. The Crime Control Act made it illegal to have a firearm in a school zone. The Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act made it illegal to make or import armor piercing bullets. The Federal Firearms Act made it illegal to sell or export firearms unless you purchased a Federal Firearms License. The National Firearms Act levied on a $200.00 tax and required the purchaser of the gun to fill out paperwork (regarding the background of the purchaser) approved by the Treasury Department.
There are many organizations involved with the Second Amendment. One of them is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA is an organization, which is against gun control. They want to prove to everyone the Second Amendment really does give the citizens of the U.S. the right to bear arms, and it is legal to own a firearm. They are even trying to make the number of child death from firearms go down. They are doing this by introducing a new program to schools. The Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program comes to classrooms from pre-k – 5 and teaches the students about firearms and how to be safe around them. Another organization is the law enforcement agency, or the police. The law enforcement agency is a group of police officers controlled by the state. Their job is to protect their communities. They are involved with the Second Amendment because they carry firearms and their job to protect those who are not able to protect themselves.
I interviewed a policeman named Paul McGinniss. He is a retired California Highway Patrol Officer, and also taught hunter safety classes in Ukiah, as well as being the President of the Gun Club. He is a strong believer in the Second Amendment. Paul McGinniss feels the Second Amendment was a good addition to the Constitution. He also believes the laws of the Second Amendment we have today are the ones we need. He thinks the Second amendment should not be interpreted any different than it is today. He believes each state should be able to say what they think the laws on the Second Amendment should be in their state. He doesn’t think the idea of one law on the Second Amendment throughout the country is a good idea. So, his main idea on the Second Amendment is it is a good addition to the Constitution and the laws we have on it now are very good.
I interviewed another man named Eric Rennert. He is a public defender in Ukiah. Although Eric Rennert does support the Second Amendment, he thinks it does need some improvements. He feels that the Second Amendment was made so it could be changed. He believes when our founding fathers made the Constitution, they made it so it could be changed along with the changing times. Mr. Rennert also thinks we should have one law throughout the country on the Second Amendment, as apposed to several laws within each state. So, his main idea of the Second Amendment was, although he believed in it, he thought it still needed some improvements.
One current event regarding the Second Amendment was a shooting in Colorado called, “The Columbine Shooting.” The Columbine Shooting was at a high school in Columbine, Colorado. What happened was two students brought two propane bombs to school and put them in the cafeteria. They decided to wait outside and shoot any kids running out of the school. However, the bombs did not explode. So, the two students went into the school to find out what went wrong. They brought many firearms with them and they discharged at many students, either wounding or killing them. It was a huge event and it greatly affected many peoples’ beliefs on the Second Amendment.[15] The Columbine shooting had only affected the U.S, but it was heard worldwide. It affected the U.S. because it caused a lot of people in the U.S. harm, but it also brought to attention the issues with the Second Amendment. It also may have changed a lot of peoples’ beliefs.
There was another important event that had happened in Australia recently. In Australia, gun rights had been taken away from the citizens. About six hundred forty thousand, three hundred eighty-one firearms were taken away from the public. Since their gun rights were taken away, statistics show armed robberies there have gone up forty-four percent, homicides have gone up three point two percent, assaults have gone up eight point six percent, and in Victoria, Australia, homicides have gone up three hundred percent!!![16]. Also, this new law has cost about five hundred million dollars! That’s money right out of the taxpayers’ wallets!
Very recently, there was a change of office in the White House. President Barrack Obama was sworn in just a few months ago. There have been many rumors going on since then about gun control. A lot of people believe President Obama may take away some of our gun rights or raise a tax on ammunition and firearms. There has been a massive increase in gun sales since then. People think they should buy firearms now before any law is passed making it harder for them to get the firearms. President Obama is known not to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment[17].
Statistics in the world show that guns are used eighty times more for self – defense than for violent actions toward others. This means guns are used in self – defense six thousand, eight hundred fifty times a day. So, if guns are used in self defense eighty times more than for violence toward others, that would mean guns are used for violent actions toward others only eighty-five times in one day[18].
If you believe citizens having firearms could be dangerous to you and others, then you should be even more afraid of doctors. The number of accidental deaths caused by each doctor is about zero point one hundred seventy-one where as the number of deaths caused by each gun owner is zero point zero, zero, zero, zero one hundred eighty-eight. So, the chances of someone dying by the hands of a doctor are a lot higher than the chances of you dying by a gun related death[19].
After doing all of this research and writing this report, my opinion has not changed. My opinion on the Second Amendment has only been strengthened. I still believe every citizen should always have the right to bear arms, but now there are more reasons why I believe this. I believe the laws we have in effect now regarding the Second Amendment are what we need. I do not think we need to limit or change the Second Amendment in other ways than we already have.
As I researched the Second Amendment my opinion slowly changed. About the time I had finished my notes, I had a good feeling of what I believed. When I was a bout halfway through my Proteus Report, I decided I still believed in the Second Amendment. My opinion hadn’t changed much, but it did a little. I now had more reasons why I believed in the Second Amendment. Before, I didn’t know why I believed in the Second Amendment I just did. Now, I know why.
My opinion on fixing the Second Amendment is to stop putting laws into effect to limit it. The laws we have now are good enough to ensure public safety. I believe having the right to bear arms not only protects citizens from danger but they also prevent danger from occurring in the first place. Any criminal would think twice about attacking someone if they knew that person might have a firearm.
I also believe an important issue that ties into the Second Amendment is firearm safety and regulations. Gun ownership is currently governed state and county wide, and without this, the Second Amendment is too open for interpretation. I believe people should have the right to bear arms, but only if they are qualified, educated, and regulated to carry those firearms. As everybody says, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”
[1] http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html
2 http://dictionary.reference.com/
[3] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[4] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[5] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[6] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[7] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[8] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[9] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[10] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[11] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[12] http://dictionary.reference.com/
[13] http://members.tripod.com/~HawkseyesA/gunsin.htm#SEC%20B
[14] Armento Beverly et al. “A More Perfect Union.” Boston, MAS: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1991.
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre
[16]http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp
[17] CNN News, November 15, 2008
[18] http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm
[19] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_drug_related_deaths_in_the_US_each_year
