Pros And Cons Of Amend The Second Amendment

Should We Amend the 2nd Amendment?
What does the Second Amendment give the people? Is it safe to have a gun in your house? Is gun ownership a civil right? Gun control has been a hot topic for a very long time. Within the Bill of Rights there are the ten most important amendments to the United States Constitution. Among these is the second amendment, in which it is stated that, “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, should not be infringed.”(Kates, 2005, pp.12) Guns are part of every citizen’s daily life. People who are against gun control believe that gun ownership is a Constitutional right backed by the Second Amendment. They believe that every citizen has a right

The second amendment states that individual citizen have a constitutionally protected right to own a gun. According to Don Kates (2005), “The Second Amendment guarantees every responsible, law-abiding adult the right to own guns for defense of self, home, and family” (D 11). When the second amendment was written by the founding fathers, their intent was to protect the basic human right of self-defense. They believed that each person has the right to bear arms in defense of themselves, their property, and their family. Furthermore, when ordinary, law-abiding citizens have access to firearms, society is safer and everyone is protected. When gun ownership is in the hands of ordinary citizens who don’t abuse the right, crime is deterred, which makes society safer. This right cannot be trespassed upon by the government. Therefore, the federal government does not have the right to limit personal access of

The Gun Lobby and the National Rifle Association mistakenly believe that the Second Amendment not only guarantees an individual’s right to own firearms, but also limits the making and enforcement of any laws limiting the use of and ownership of guns. There is no constitutional law that prevents the government from limiting personal access to firearms through legal means. The argument over the right to bear arms should not be about whether the right belongs to the people; but rather, it should address the purpose and scope of that right. According to Dennis Henigan (2005), “Arms-bearing in the well-regulated militia was a duty owed to the government, not a personal right to be exercised against the government,” (D 21). The right to keep and bear arms is basically different from the other guarantees in the Bill of Rights. It was granted to the people not to serve the power of the individual, but to serve “the security of a free State,” (Henigan, 2005, pp.23-24). In other words, guns can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard. It’s not for individual