The second amendment of the US Constitution Essay Example for Free

The second amendment of the US Constitution EssayThe second amendment of the US Constitution states that a well regulated reserves is necessary to the security of a free state and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The second amendment is outdated. In the magazine it was created and passed was a time when the militia was the people. It was made so that people could fight the British, which isnt the case now, especially now that we have our own full-functioning army and integrity enforcement. It was made in a time to keep a tyrannical government in check. We are no longer under the control of a tyrannical government so why should we still have the amendment? When a town was attacked it was the citizens duty to get their rifles and defend the town. There is now no wizard on US soil attacking peoples homes and if in that respect was we have police and the army to defend us. In this time there is no need for minutemen, their guns, or the se cond amendment.To continue, there is quite a fallacy in the opposing side. Giving guns to only people who wouldnt use them for crime would not work. You cannot tell apart between good and bad people be crap, all people with guns are potentially bad. There is nothing stopping an otherwise innocent person from committing a crime with his gun. You cannot give only good people guns. As for the people that will be allowed to legally own guns (e.g. police, army) it is highly illogical to assume there will be so many corrupt people that the good wont be fitted to adequately defend you. A strike down of the second amendment would make America a safer place to live and that is good for everyone. The repeal would lead to lowering the nitty-gritty of deaths from guns because guns are a substantial amount of deaths in the US.Also, it would lower crime rate in general because people who use guns to commit crimes such as robbery, would no longer be able to do so. Furtherto a greater extent, the money people would have spent on guns could be spent on extra security features, like locks or alarms, instead of a tool of death. The usefulness of guns if often exaggerated. Firstly, there is no evidence to indicate gun ownership deters overall burglary rate. Secondly, most people have guns to prevent robbery, but pulling a gun on a robber could cause him to act more violent. Thirdly, having a gun could enable him to take it from you and kill you. Lastly, more pertaining to families, a kid could find a gun and kill him or herself and/or others. According to these preceding points it seems that guns cause more harm than help.I reconcile that it was made by the founding fathers and put in the original constitution, which makes it seem pretty important, but in this day and age it is evident that the amendment isnt as relevant as it once was. In response to the obvious argument about self-defense, the police force and army, which werent established in the past, are adequate to(p) of attacking us. Besides, if the person attacking you probably isnt going to have a gun, why should you have one? In short, for the need for evolution of a country, the sake of a safer country, and the debunking of the need for guns, I conclude that the second amendment should be repealed because no matter how pure the person or intention, guns can cause chaos among the general population.