Why Is The Second Amendment Important
The Second Amendment; Should we Keep it or Loose it?
The Second Amendment has been mentioned quite frequently in the Presidential election. There are candidates who support and do not support the Second Amendment. Some politicians believe that the Second Amendment only applies to militias and not private citizens.
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.” As previously stated, Justice Scalia believed that the Second Amendment did in fact extend to the private citizen where as Justice Stevens did not. When reading the D.C. v. Heller case, you can see how the Second Amendment can be interpreted in different …show more content…
It would seem that those who lived during the Revolutionary War period understood the significance of private citizens owning firearms. It is obvious that the U.S. has become more civilized since the 18TH century. However, does that mean the citizens and elected officials should do away with the idea of private citizens owning and possessing firearms based on that premise? Even media sources such as the New
York Times comments on the issue. The article “End the Gun Epidemic in America” that was written by the New York Times Editorial Board states the following: “It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.” Granted, some of these firearms that can be purchased are a bit questionable as to why a private citizen would need a certain type of firearm. For instance, a Class III License allows a law abiding citizen to purchase a …show more content…
However, one cannot ignore that private ownership could very well have served as a deterrent of invasion by the Japanese during World War II. Today when you watch or read the news you will see some story about a shooting. You may read the story and think to yourself is firearm ownership still viable? When you look at the percentages of people affected directly when it comes to firearm incidents, the numbers are very low. Unfortunately, you cannot predict if a person is going to use that firearm for good or for evil intentions. This is why it’s called human nature. Human beings are hard to predict at times.
Maybe, that person could have had a bad day and want to take it out on someone. Does that mean we should punish the whole population because of a few that choose to do misuse these firearms? Some people would say yes. It is understandable why some Americans would say yes to this idea. It is a reasonable assumption that most people if not everyone wants to feel safe either on the street or in their own house. When you dial 911, the police may not respond in time. So, wouldn’t it be prudent to retain this right instead of getting rid of or severely
The Second Amendment has been mentioned quite frequently in the Presidential election. There are candidates who support and do not support the Second Amendment. Some politicians believe that the Second Amendment only applies to militias and not private citizens.
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.” As previously stated, Justice Scalia believed that the Second Amendment did in fact extend to the private citizen where as Justice Stevens did not. When reading the D.C. v. Heller case, you can see how the Second Amendment can be interpreted in different …show more content…
It would seem that those who lived during the Revolutionary War period understood the significance of private citizens owning firearms. It is obvious that the U.S. has become more civilized since the 18TH century. However, does that mean the citizens and elected officials should do away with the idea of private citizens owning and possessing firearms based on that premise? Even media sources such as the New
York Times comments on the issue. The article “End the Gun Epidemic in America” that was written by the New York Times Editorial Board states the following: “It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.” Granted, some of these firearms that can be purchased are a bit questionable as to why a private citizen would need a certain type of firearm. For instance, a Class III License allows a law abiding citizen to purchase a …show more content…
However, one cannot ignore that private ownership could very well have served as a deterrent of invasion by the Japanese during World War II. Today when you watch or read the news you will see some story about a shooting. You may read the story and think to yourself is firearm ownership still viable? When you look at the percentages of people affected directly when it comes to firearm incidents, the numbers are very low. Unfortunately, you cannot predict if a person is going to use that firearm for good or for evil intentions. This is why it’s called human nature. Human beings are hard to predict at times.
Maybe, that person could have had a bad day and want to take it out on someone. Does that mean we should punish the whole population because of a few that choose to do misuse these firearms? Some people would say yes. It is understandable why some Americans would say yes to this idea. It is a reasonable assumption that most people if not everyone wants to feel safe either on the street or in their own house. When you dial 911, the police may not respond in time. So, wouldn’t it be prudent to retain this right instead of getting rid of or severely