The only people who wouldn’t use them

The 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 people to keep and bear arms 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The second amendment is outdated.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 isn’t the case now, especially now that we have our own full-functioning army and law 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 one on US soil attacking peoples’ homes and if there 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.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

To continue, there is quite a fallacy in the opposing side. Giving guns to only people who wouldn’t use them for crime would not work. You cannot differentiate between good and bad people because, 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 won’t be able to adequately defend you. A repeal 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 amount 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. Furthermore, 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 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 isn’t as relevant as it once was. In response to the obvious argument about self-defense, the police force and army, which weren’t established in the past, are capable of attacking us.

Besides, if the person attacking you probably isn’t 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.


I'm Casey!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out