Few issues incite americans more than the issue of rising crime and violence. This problem can easily be linked to the availability of guns."The debate over whether guns are a hallowed tradition and a right guaranteed by the Second Ammendment of the U.S.constitution or whether they are a fearful danger contributing to crime and violence." ("gun control") Due to the outbreak of violence in our society, some people feel that repealing the Second Ammendment would solve the problem. These people feel that repealing the Second Ammendment would solve the problem. These people feel that there are two reasons for the repeal; One is the rising of violence among teenagers, the second reason is their interpertation of the Second Ammendment which could be considered a strict one. The side opposing these views use arguments like how it would be immpossible to repeal the Second Ammendment, and a long western civilizations history with a right to bear arms. Finally one can see the conflict of views dealing with the Second Ammenment, but one would also see that repealing the ammendment wouldn't solve the problem facing our society. The contriversy of this issue that has the potential to pulverise this country is why it is such a good topic to discuss, people should be better informed and make a decision based on fact and not fiction.
Many advocates of the limitations of guns can quote numerous examples of increasing violence and homicide crimes. But the area which hits the closest to home is the issue of violence among the teenagers of our society. The years have changed on how students deal with their problems "Twenty-five or thirty years ago, when teenage boys got into a fight... it usually meant a fist fight. In more and more neighborhoods... it now means a shoot out" ("Gun Control"320). Violence like that is a major problem on our streets and even in our schools. Almost everywhere now "youngsters are packing weapons, Some are involved in drugs or gangs; others carry them for self-defense... One study says at least one in every three male juveniles is armed"(Muller 2). Now more than ever before an "increasing number of children under the age of 18 arrested each year for murder has jumped 55% in the past decade,... Juvenile arrests for aggravated assault are rising dramatically" (Henkoff 2). The results of this rising trend in violence has led to the release of a "center for disease center reports that since 1988, American teenage boys have been more likely to die from gunshot wounds than from... All other natural diseases" ("Gun Control" 83). This trend can be the result of "the widespread of availability of firearms [which] makes it far too easy for kids to kill... Guns figure in more than 15% of adolescent homicides... "There are more than 200 million privately owned guns in America" (Henkoff 7). With the violence of American youngsters rising at a stagering rate, we obviosly cannot sit and do nothing. Something must be done and gun limitations through the repeal of the Second Ammendment is a good weopon in this war.
The second reason why a repeal of the Second Ammendment could be a good choice in limiting guns is the original purpose of that ammendment. The ammendment "grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "National" or "standing army, [originally they also] limited the National Army to 840 men" (Burger 4). This idea led to the true reason for the ammendment "the need for a state militia was the "right" guarenteed [in the ammendment] In short, it was declared "neccesary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state" (Burger 6). The ammendment issued the right of militia's and for hunters which in that day depended on their guns for food. Now "Americans have a right to defend their homes, we need not change that, nor does anyone question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to hunt game. "Hunting is a sport for recreation but "machine guns are not recreational... and surely are in need of regulations as are motor vehicles" (Burger 7) Now Americans don't fear fear a national army as they once did anyway. The "huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the military of 200 years ago" Burger 4) and everybody seems to have delt with it. Therefore the security of a free dtate is protected by the national establishment, this eliminates the need for military type weopons for a so called defense.
Those opposing the limitation of gun rights can easily quote numerous examples why not to repeal the Second Ammendment. The NRA for example uses the slipery slope until every weapon is accounted for even though this is true "one of the major arguements against the theory that gun control would save lives is that...firearm controls could have no,[real] effect on homicide rates because it is human nature, homicide would continue" (Henkoff 18). murders would pick up the next best weapon. This explisifies that it would be impossible for a repeal to be succesful. Also knowing that "an estimated 100,000,000 guns now owned exceeds the annual incident count of 1,000,000 by a factor of 100, this means that existing stock of weapons could supply criminals for the next century even if used just once" (Wright,Ross, and Dailey 320). Now will a repeal limit this? Furthermore even if you got rid of all existing guns "it is after all, not much more dificult to manufacture servicable firearms in ones home than to brew up a batch of homeade gin" (Wright,Ross, and Dailey 321). This ability to manufacture underground weapons was seen before during the Soviet Unions war with Afghanistan. The "Afghanistan tribesmen used wood and metal working equipment much like the equipment you can order in a sears magazine, produced hand crafted rifles that fire the Russian AK-47 assault rifle cartridge" (Wright,Ross, and Dailey 421). Can we expect less from Americans?
Finally the overwhelming reason that the Second Ammendment shouldn't be repealed is the long western civilazations history dealing with the right to keep and bear arms. Ideologist supporting the right to bear arms can be traced as far as "The Greek philosopher Aristole who thought the bearing of arms was neccesary to true citizenship and participation in a political system" ("Gun Control"120). Throughout the ages this theme was supported by keestores of our civilization like Prince Machiavelli, the Italian political philosopher, advocated and armed populations of citizens soldiers to keep head strong rulers in line. Then in English society the right to bear arms was insured, " when William and Mary were invited to occupy the throne of England in 1687, they were presented with an English bill of right. This bill included a specific right for Englishmen to have Arms for defense" ("Gun Control"8), in fact if this right was not exersized during the Revolutionary War with England our constitution would never have been written. In conclusion " A well Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Amendment 2 of The United States Constitution). These are sacred words.
It is obvious that crime is a major problem in Today's Society. Many steps have been taken as voters demand that the government do something about the rising crime and violence in America, but is repealing the Second Ammendment the Answer? No it is not. We must think of the result of such a repeal, many people would not stand for it they would take arms to defend the very right being taken away. If the right to keep and bear arms had not been exercised when George Washington led the U.S. to victory over England, our Constitution would not exist, that is why the Second Ammendment is such a sacred one, it is the basis for which the ideas of this country stand upon. Would people really sit idle as the Government takes action to more obser to Tyranny? In addition to the Second Ammendment most people are unaware that the 14th or Civil Rights Ammendment also guarantees the right of freedmen to bear arms. Do advocates against the Second Ammendment suggest that we repeal this ammendment too? Many Americans would not go for that. Furthermore it is obvious that it would be impossible to repeal the Second Ammendment there are otherways to deal with rising crime and violence. Obviously military type weapons should not be available to the public, they are designed with one thing in mind, to kill people. There should also be limits on semi-automatic handguns because they are not even suitable for sport and it only takes one shot to warn off someone attaking you not 14 as many weapons can hold. Even though steps must be taken to curb gun violence people must get more involved with the system to insure that limits do not go too far. It is after all the people who control politics, not politicians.
In conclusion the Constitution holds the basic rights for which we exercise each day. Our basic rights are guarenteed by the Constitution, and if they abolish the Second Ammendment we would not enjoy the result, no crime but at the cost of a police state. This is not America.
Source: Essay UK - http://www.essay.uk.com/coursework/the-second-ammendment.php