Second Amendment Of The Constitution example essay topic

The Unfortunate American Way As the prime minister of Australia decided to abolish guns in his country he stated, "This country has decided not to go down the American path". The amount of absurd violence with handguns in this country is out of control. The United States of America, the world superpower, has more gun related deaths than almost all of the other leading countries combined. The example we are setting is non-existent, for we are showing the weakness of our country by letting this occur. America's youth is becoming influenced and poisoned by this, and if it is not stopped, our country will have complete anarchy and our democracy will be shattered.

The second amendment is continuously misinterpreted. The second amendment clearly states for a well regulated militia and that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This does not refer to an individual to posses a handgun for personal use; it refers that it shall not by congress. The vagueness of the amendment is why we have an excessive amount of controversy.

The framers wrote the amendment over two hundred years ago at a time when the United States was different, where guns were absolutely essential for survival. Now in the present society, where the United States has urbanized, industrialized, and modernized, where a handgun is not needed for food or protection from foreign enemies. Moreover, we must look at the safety of our constituents over the technicalities of a strict enforcement of the constitution. The United States must listen to John Howard and avert from going farther in the path that it is presently engaged in.

Furthermore, as the leader of the world, the United States is morally obligated to rise up and take the initiative, set the example, protect our constituents, and put an end to the 700,000 violent crimes committed each year by amending the constitution and abolishing the second amendment. Our country should be saddened of what the American way really is. Gun control is defined as "A term that refers to the attempt to reduce violence by use of firearms by regulating their ownership and use". Yes, gun control works but to a certain extent. Even though, according to a ABC News / Washington Post poll, two-thirds of Americans favor stricter gun control laws and 40% of creating new laws, it is not the solution to the horrific enigma. First gun control laws are not enforced correctly or strictly enough.

Gun control will just antagonize the situation. The solution is abolishing handguns completely. Now this sounds impracticable, but in reality it is highly feasible. Even though only 38% of Americans favor banning handguns completely, it is because the American public is scared of change. They are afraid it will result in a citizens revolt, that there will be anarchy, that they will not be able to defend themselves, and that criminals will still have handguns. However, none of this will happen in fact most criminals do not get their weapons from the black market, they get their weapons from family members, friends, or stores.

Our country is too strong for any of that to happen, for example the 2000 election. After all the protesting, and after George W. Bush was finally announced President elect, people thought there would be terror in the streets. That was absolutely false, there were no tanks in the street, no army, not even police, and people were not killing or threatening each other. That was a prime example of how strong our country and constitution really is.

Experts said we would have a "constitutional crisis" but there is no crisis, our country is too strong. The United States' democracy is so brilliant, we are the only country that could go through a presidential election as we did and not have civil war break out. However, our only crisis happening in today's society is the gun violence. The U.S. is the global leader but our homicide rate involving handguns is the highest of any country in the world. In the United Kingdom, where gun control laws are uniform, their homicide rate is one of the lowest in the world. In Britain, the homicide rate is 1.4 per 100,000 people, 0.6 in Wales, and in Switzerland it is 1.2 per 100,000 people.

In the United States the homicide rate is 15.4 per 100,000 people. In Britain, handguns killed only 20 people in 1990, in Australia only 10, in Japan only 87, but in the U.S., 10,567. The problem eludes to that the framers of the constitution never saw a day when Americans would live in crowded cities rather than rural areas and that 638,900 violent crimes were committed each year using a handgun. The founding fathers never imagined a day when all Americans have the protection of a controlled police force, where guns are no longer needed to protect themselves and there is no longer a threat from any states or the government. Also, congress is pursuing to mandate safety locks on all handguns. Well this will expunge any merit to the argument that law-abiding citizens use handguns for self-defense.

By the time a criminal robs someone, there will be no time to unlock a safety lock from the gun, hence the gun would be useless and cause more anger than already occurring. From 1998 to 1999 18.7 million people attempted to buy a gun. According to the FBI, 12.4 million firearms are sold yearly in the U.S. and about half of all U.S. families own at least one gun. From 1973 to 1992 the number of handguns increased by 110 percent, and as a result from 1988 to 1994 gun related homicides grew almost 30 percent. Unlicensed gun owners outnumber those who are licensed ten to one.

Guns are involved in two-thirds of all homicides in the U.S. Former President and Vice-President, Bill Clinton and Al Gore's administration contends that 13 children die every day from guns. With some of the weakest regulations in the world, the United States has the most guns and the highest rate of gun homicides. Moreover, Australia banned all weapons on May 10, 1996 with 91 percent of city and 88 percent of urban residents in support of the ban. In a political address, the Prime Minister of Australia stated, "This represents an enormous shift in the culture on the use and ownership of guns". It is just evident that other leading countries are taking that all important initiative and setting the example instead of the United States, the supposedly most powerful nation in the world.

Great Britain has strict gun control laws with very low gun homicide rates, it is the same in Canada, Australia has banned guns, and even Israel has banned assault weapons. It just seems way too apparent that all leading countries are taking the proper steps to shut down guns and all the complications they cause, except for the United States. Arthur Kellerman, an established physician claims that households with guns compared to households without guns are five times more likely to be the scene of a suicide and three times more likely to be the scene of a homicide. In 1997, in 70 percent of the murders in the U.S. a gun was the weapon used. The only way to solve all these appalling problems is abolishing guns, it is simple, and it is the only method that will work. Opponents of abolishing the second amendment say if we do this, we will be violating a fundamental right of the constitution, the right to keep and bear arms, and we will be questioning the integrity of the constitution.

Well actually this statement is false. Our constituents must realize we are not questioning the integrity, merely recognizing that the second amendment is flawed and something must be done. The second amendment is far from referring to a right to keep and bear arms, as it is so often quoted and misunderstood. The second amendment reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Even the Supreme Court has referred the militia to the National Guards of today. The second amendment is confusing and vague, but it is clear if you have intelligence or have common sense. It gives the right of the people in terms of war against a free state or the government, not for Bob to possess one because he wants to or wants to shoot a hundred people in a massacre. Just as a plane enthusiast cannot own an F-16, boating enthusiasts a nuclear submarine, a gun enthusiast should not be able to own weapons. In addition, it is extraordinarily simple to realize that too many people die each year from guns that we shall look at the safety of the American constituents over a document written 200 years ago that is outdated and fuzzy. The only solution is to adopt a constitutional amendment abolishing the second amendment.

If congress were to abolish guns, it is feasible to collect these weapons. First authorities would collect guns from licensed owners. Punishment would be harsh if owners refused to give up their weapons and if a citizen was found with possessing or using a weapon. The police force and proper authorities would still be allowed to possess guns.

Manufacturing would be limited to the proper authorities specified by congress. Proper authorities would also have the right to confiscate any weapon they are held unlawfully by any citizen. The federal government should offer incentives to cooperative citizens and those who report anyone with a weapon. Furthermore, we cannot let the United States lose its hegemonic force; let's take the initiative, rise up and eradicate all weapons.

The second amendment of the constitution is extremely unclear and can be interpreted in many different ways. The United States vs. Cruikshank is no exception. In this controversial case, Ku Klux Klan members were charged with infringing on the constitutional rights of black citizens to bear arms. The defendants were also charged with not letting these people of African descent to freely assemble. The defendants were found guilty for their intent to hinder and prevent the citizens of African descent to free exercise and enjoyment of their lawful right and privilege to peacefully assemble together with each other and with other citizens of the United States for a peaceful and lawful purpose.

They were acquitted though on the charge that they were infringing on another citizens constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The highest court of the land ruled that the right specified is that of bearing arms for a lawful purpose, is not a right granted by the constitution. Chief Justice Waite goes on to say that the second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed. This is one of the amendments that has no effect other than to restrict the powers of the national government, not so citizens may keep and bear arms for their personal use.

This was the first time the Supreme Court addressed the second amendment, but it was the most accurate. The second amendment declares that citizens may keep and bear arms to protect themselves from the national government. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution, they wanted to avert the U.S. government of ever becoming too powerful, and if it did the citizens could protect themselves. In today's modern society, Americans are not protecting themselves from any national government instead they are killing other Americans.

The constitution is too vague and is outdated; we must take action now and stop the atrocities that are occurring in our great country today. Perhaps the most influential, cited, and talked about Supreme Court case dealing with the second amendment is the United States vs. Miller in 1939. Jack Miller was charged with unlawfully, knowingly, willfully, and felonious ly transporting in interstate commerce from Oklahoma to Arkansas a 12 gauge shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length. Also, the shotgun was not registered, a violation of the National Firearms Act of 1934. The National Firearm Act of 1934 declares that certain types of firearms and devices such as sawed-off shotguns to be registered. A lower district court declared the NFA unconstitutional under the second amendment that it infringed on a citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court made no decision regarding the National Firearm Act's constitutionality. However, the court did unanimously overturn the lower courts decision. The Supreme Court's final opinion declared that in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we [the court] cannot say that the second amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. This case clearly shows the genuine intent of the second amendment. The second amendment just allowed citizens to keep and bear arms for if they went to war and citizens were called upon to fight, they were expected to have a firearm. Now that we have a well regulated and one of the most powerful armies in the world citizens no longer need to keep and bear firearms.

When the founding fathers wrote the constitution their army did not have a large enough budget to have the firearms and supplies we have now. For that reason, citizens were expected to have their own firearms. One of the most famous saying is "Desperate times calls for desperate measures", which is why we must have a constitutional amendment to abolish the second amendment. Former Justice Lewis Powell put it best when he states, "With respect to guns it is not easy to understand why the second amendment or the notion of liberty, should be viewed as creating a right to own and carry a weapon that contributes to the shocking number of murders in the United States". Neither people nor firearms kill people; the American people kill people with firearms. We are obligated as the leader of the world to rise up and take the initiative to stop this severe problem in the U.S. today.

We must stop the atrocities; we will not stand for this abomination, for we must protect our American constituents. The vagueness of the second amendment is why there is so much controversy. There is an old saying that goes like this, "you must not fight fire with fire, for you must fight it with water. Even though some people believe this will add to the problem, but in reality it will extinguish the problem. Even this action only saves one American life it was worth it.

Our country should be distraught of what the American way really is, and that it is just so unfortunate.