The second amendment of the US Constitution Essay Example for Free

The entropy amendment of the US Constitution EssayThe second amendment of the US Constitution states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state and that the right of the plenty to keep and bear ordnance store shall not be infringed. The second amendment is outdated. In the time 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 law en baronment. It was made in a time to keep a tyrannical government in check. We argon no longer under the control of a tyrannical government so why should we nonoperational 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 nonpareil on US soil attacking peoples homes and if thither was we have police and the army to defend us. In this time there is no need for minutemen, their guns , or the second amendment.To continue, there is quite a hallucination in the opposing side. Giving guns to only people who wouldnt use them for crime would not work. You cannot particularise between good and bad people because, all people with guns are potentially bad. There is energy 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 able to adequately defend you. A repeal of the second amendment would make America a safer slip to live and that is good for everyone. The repeal would lead to lowering the count 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(prenominal) 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 boilers suit 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 predate points it seems that guns cause more harm than help.I agree 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, a re capable 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 reckon how pure the person or intention, guns can cause chaos among the general population.