• Yes, but for the better

    Because the 2nd amendment was written 200 or so years ago, the statement is open to interpretation that can allow it to be watered down. The second amendment should be re-written to the effect of something like "The right of the people to keep and bear arms equivalent of that to the military shall not be infringed upon pain of death" If it was written like that, we wouldn't have a gun control problem :D

  • For the betterment of society. I'm going to write a lot, but feel free to debate maturely with me on this. Read everything though.

    First off, for credibility, I'd like to say that my family is full of gun-owning men and thus, I know what it's like to be around firearms firsthand.

    My argument is based on the idea that the very right of owning firearms should not be totally abolished. That's why "rewrite" is the magic word here.

    The right to bear arms in the 2nd amendment assumes the right that everyone should have the right to own a gun. You, me, your neighbor, your classmate, anyone. This is argued in the context that by "militia" and the "people" written in the Constitution, I'm going to assume the Founding Fathers meant common individuals. I'm going to say it blatantly that this is a wrong, outdated ideal that we need to let go as a society. We do not live on the frontiers anymore. We are not overshadowed by a foreign government's military anymore. We do not have simple muskets and similar firearms that pose relatively lesser threat to others. We now live in the most militarily powerful country in the world, with the largest air and sea fleet, and the second largest standing army. In less than 300 years, the United States took Earth's throne of military might. My rant proves that we have no need to fear another country's invasion and dispels the foreign power argument.

    Now, the more interesting argument involves us needing guns in case our OWN government becomes tyrannical and takes away our rights. It's a perfectly reasonable fear, considering the nearly totalitarian governments of Russia and China. But, I am going to introduce the role culture plays in this issue. American culture is progressive, arguably housing the most progressive movements the world has ever seen. We get angry when we're hushed. We fight police when they have guns and we have rocks. The riots in Baltimore and Ferguson show how destructive the common population is when facing political unrest. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that little numbers of people die in our accounts of unrest (not to say that it is a good thing). That is because we aren't China or Russia. They silence their media. Here, our governments are wary of it. In China or Russia, people don't protest like we do here. In their countries, their governments aren't scared to use lethal force to subdue their civilians. Here, the government will face harsh ridicule of the people and protesters gather in the tens of thousands. Screwups even cause the most powerful people here to "resign" (AKA fired). One example would be Obamacare's top health director leaving office when a data breach happened on her watch. What I'm basically saying is that guns aren't our only weapons against the government anymore. We use information to kill, so why allow guns among the common people so openly when they pose a threat to others?

  • Our constitutional right.

    The right to keep and bear arms is our constitutional right and it should remain that way. The people of the United States and any other country for that matter, have the right to defend themselves. If a person breaks into your home, you should have the right to protect your family. Criminals are not going to stop carrying guns. I would rather put a bullet in a burglars head than take the chance of them harming myself or my children.

  • No, the Second Amendment should not be rewritten.

    No, I do not think that the Founding Fathers would ever want to see the Second Amendment rewritten. The Second Amendment is meant to provide citizens of this country protection from both other citizens and the government, and I think that all citizens are entitled to some type of protection as provided by this amendment.

  • No the Second Amendment does not need to be rewritten, people just need to read it!

    The Second Amendment states, "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."

    Nothing in the Second Amendment limits the government from regulating the possession of firearms. It does not guarantee the right to purchase the weapon of your choice, only to own an arm. Should the government be able to show a compelling interest in regulation of firearm ownership they (Congress) as pass that law.

  • A Can of Worms

    Rewriting the 2nd Amendment, would open a can of worms. The right it recognizes and protects was viewed as a natural right, not a 'privilege' bestowed by Government. It precedes Government and the prohibitions on Government provided by the Amendment were intended "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers." (Preamble to the Bill of Rights) Once you start changing those core protections found in the Bill of Rights, you make them subject to the whims (fears and ignorance) of a generation, nefarious politicians, et al. That does not accomplish the purpose of "the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution." (Preamble to the Bill of Rights) It actually accomplishes the opposite. The historical understanding and the most relevant is there to be clearly understood and has been by the Supreme Court, numerous Congressional studies and investigations, etc. The problem is in getting people, the lower courts, those opposed to that particular Amendment, et al. To understand what that tradition is and the reasons for it; not in rewriting it.

  • No, not really.

    Any Amendment written that long ago is more up for interpretation than to be accepted at face value. Knowing this, yes, every American should be allowed to keep their right to bare arms. The only thing in that should be interpreted would be if we should have arms similar to those who are within the military. Not everyone can properly use more powerful guns.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.