Second Amendment Editorial Essay

The simple phrase has led to majority populace debate both live and in social media pages. Different people have had varied opinions on Second amendment editorial. Some have tagged it as a political war, while others embrace it with open arms, terming themselves as loyal citizens by right. They echo the words of former leaders that the only way to avert crime is by self-defence mechanisms. For this to take the course, every citizen must have a firearm. The insight shows how a majority people have the voice, which by any nature remains to be. In simple terms, it represented how free people are to enjoy their rights of freedom, and how great are their opinions (Farris, 45).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

One Thomas Jefferson says that laws that forbid a citizen to exercise self-defence make the specified persona feeble twig that can break due to assailant while the assaulter is like a Lord. He means that an armed citizen needs a calculated move to get attacked, which ought to be different if he is not in the procession of a gun tucked on the waist, or hidden somewhere within the body.

Guns alone cannot be a cause of the anti-social behaviour. Several inclusions must be there for an occurrence. In the circumstance where shooting occurs within a massive audience, a criminal would be shot at first sight by over thirty bullets from law-abiding citizens. On the other hand, guns have more than one purpose. Some use them for hunting and sporting activities. Armed forces have been using guns on special occasions to showcase her power and readiness in defending territorial bounders.

The population has been on the increase with better health systems that have reduced mortality rates. This implies that in any case of an attack, police cannot be in a position to defend all of them at the same time. Gun control is not a remedy to the problem in hand. Criminals have ways of surpassing some of these ways in which guns are controlled with and at the end they are back in the society. For instance, regulations against beer taking for underage children has almost zero effect because of them engage in drinking and partying. Has the government managed to regulate such? In simple terms no! It can apply to guns too. Research shows that most of the guns used were in self-defence cases and not committing crimes as perceived by the society (Wood, 32).

Freedom to own guns means that one will not have to pass through tedious processes in government offices trying to apply for a license to own a gun. With the new amendment, the economy of the state is likely to experience an upward surge. Not only will it be a benefit to the government but her people also. For instance, there is a likely hood of gun training classes mushrooming, to train gun users on technicalities of using the firearm, and maintenance of the same. It means an extra source of income.

Guns will create a deep sense of security and safety for the citizens. In any case, of an attack, drawing a gun to the attacker reduces chances of an assault to a large percentage. It also reduces fears that occur in the minds of impending attacks, either when left alone at home or in workplaces. However, the second amendment has several cons that make its applicability less meaningful. Among the few cons are; Gun-related incidences are likely to shoot up. For instance, when people start arguments, they both fold fists and start a fight. It means that gunshots will be on the increase even in domestic issues. Threats are likely to be the order of the day. Normal warning done verbally will be action oriented (Farris 95).

Again, there is a likelihood of increased crime. Crime necessarily does not mean burglary. Think of many people who commit suicide with these guns out of depression and broken relationships. It means that guns will not reduce crimes but increase them in an evolved version. Having guns makes some people uncomfortable. For instance, women who have a phobia of the same cannot draw a gun and shoot an attacker. In fact, they would end up surrendering the weapon to the assailant.

Lastly, the right to bear guns is unconstitutional. Citizens have been tasked to interpret the amendment because the government is made by the people and for the people. If citizens are allowed to have firearms, then the government ought to be prepared in sensitizing her people on their use. On the other hand, citizens have to accept embracing the new culture, in the way they accepted vehicles, travelling by planes and cruising with ships. Guns will not create any big difference in the society; they will only bring in a new level of seriousness as seen in earlier days with forefathers of this great nation, whose wish is being realized in this era.

Works Cited

Farris, Justine. "The Right Of Non-Citizens To Bear Arms: Understanding "The People" Of The Second Amendment". Indiana Law Review, vol 50, no. 3, 2017, p. 943. IUPUI University Library, doi:10.18060/4806.1157.

Kessler, Raymond G., and Stephen P. Halbrook. "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution Of A Constitutional Right". The Journal Of Criminal Law And Criminology (1973-), vol 77, no. 1, 2003, p. 260. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/1143603.

Wood, G. "Counting Guns: What Social Science Historians Know And Could Learn About Gun Ownership, Gun Culture, And Gun Violence In The United States". Social Science History, vol 26, no. 4, 2002, pp. 699-708. Duke University Press, doi:10.1215/01455532-26-4-699.