Declaration Of Independence Pros And Cons

As the push for independence from the British in the late 1770s became more evident prior and post the revolutionary war, the true seed of the American identity was planted with the adoption of the Declaration of Independence by the Second Continental Congress at the Pennsylvania State House on July 4, 1776. The colonies soon began taking their first steps as a nation as they took on the enlightened views of John Locke and Sir Isaac Newton, evidently leading to the establishment of the 10 amendments that would act as the fundamental principles of the blooming nation, and establish a foreground for the coming ones which define the United States today. Unended for and in a fragile state, the now independent colonies were strong patriotically
but weak physically, with no strong protection available from their militia due to a lack of weaponry. This lead to James Madison, a sponsor of the Bill of Rights and co-writer of the Constitution, ratifying the 2nd amendment that granted arms to the militia to guarantee the security of the now-free nation and it’s people to give them the power to protect themselves against future tyrannies which they were subject and defenseless to under British rule. However, today the right to bear arms is becoming a privilege in which many Americans are using for the wrong reasons through crimes, homicides, and terroristic attacks, causing one to wonder whether the founding fathers made the right decision in granting its people a weapon of protection, which soon turned to be a weapon of destruction. Today, the controversial issue of gun control regarding whether we should follow the blueprint in which the founding fathers have set for us or repeal the 2nd amendment has been gaining much support as well as opposition. However, no matter how much support the repeal of the 2nd amendment earns, it will be rendered as futile for a variety of reasons, one being that the government has no right, and by law cannot strip the U.S. citizens of a right they have rightfully earned and the United states of one of its constitutional principles. Two, taking a gun out of an individual’s does not remove the violence, for the gun does not pull its own trigger, but it’s holder. Instead, the United States government must offer ways in which the storage of guns would help avoid the weapon in falling into the wrong hands and make the ownership of a gun-selling or gun-owning license more in depth through better background checks, especially in states with most firearms per capita such as Wyoming, District of Columbia, and others. No matter how much power the state government possesses, it cannot overpower that of the constitution over the United States citizens.
In order to repeal the 2nd amendment, a new amendment must take its place, which those supporting the repeal of the 2nd have no replacement for, two-thirds of the legislative bodies of the U.S. Congress must accept it, and lastly, thirty-eight out of fifty states must vote in agreement. Therefore it's almost impossible, and very very difficult for thirty-eight consecutive states to vote yes for the removal of their protection; it would be as one giving a burglar a key to their house, but in this case giving up a right many have died for in the 1700s. Though the government may be removing the guns from the hands of its citizens, the violence still remains. In fact, the removal of the constitutional principle was proved to be futile when a similar repeal in handguns occurred in the United Kingdom in England and Wales in the year of 1996, when a “50 percent increase in homicide rates” occurred, the firearm homicide rate doubling between 1996 and 2002, causing more problems in a country with fewer tensions than that of the U.S. and forcing one to ponder on whether the repeal would truly save people, or put them in more
danger. A flower remains itself even if its stem is removed, however now lacks support and cannot stand. Likewise with the American people, removing guns from every citizen for the wrongful actions of others strips those with no fault of a rightful protection from those who are causing the problems to begin with. In the end, all the government would have done is avoid the issue instead of permanently fix it, for a terrorist is still a terrorist whether they possess a bomb or not, and a criminal will remain a criminal possessing a gun or not, because they will find other ways to cause havoc through. Therefore, to truly reduce crime, what should really be offered is better and more affordable mental health treatment to help those with violent inward struggles, which can help avoid and eventually end the mass victim shootings that occurred in Boston and others. Owning a gun license does not necessarily mean one can automatically be allowed to have a gun, especially with some citizens forging firearm licenses such as Eric Paul, a convicted felon allowed to “watch over the a $625 million veteran hospital”, who in 2013 was arrested “on-site for (possessing) a forged license” that allowed him to carry a gun. That is why background checks must become stricter and more thorough, with frequent investigations and kept records on why certain individuals purchases and for what specific use, and whether their licenses are authentic. This way, the issue regarding gun violence is removed from its roots, not cut from a stem that may sprout once again. It is well known of human nature to seek out what is not permitted with an increased drive, and the same nature will be applied to gun control. The removal guns will not remove the issue, but force its use to become covert, in return backfiring the initial plan. For instance, various drugs are declared illegal in the United States, yet they are circling around through many dealers, so many that one cannot find the origin to where they have been distributed. The same deal applies to firearm distribution; if handguns, pistols, and others are taken from the market, they will cause an increased endeavor of attainment and an even more increased level of difficulty to track down their sellers due to their surreptitious whereabouts. Jeff Cooper in Art of the Rifle once said “The rifle itself has no moral stature since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” If we as citizens, as a nation, are hoping to make our country one that represents the principles it was once built on, one in which many people fought and died for and continue to sacrifice their lives for each day, we must first start with ourselves for guns are not the issue, we are.