No one should have to worry about their right to bear arms. That’s the premise of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. The amendment was written to protect the citizens of the United States from government infringement on their rights.
There are several reasons why the second amendment should not be changed. Read on to find more.
However, some people argue that the amendment should be changed because it doesn’t cover all gun rights.
They claim that the amendment should be rewritten to cover all gun rights, not just the right to bear arms. Others believe that any change to the amendment would be unconstitutional and would have to be approved by a constitutional convention.
Do you support changing the amendment or not?
This blog post will explore the real reasons why the amendment should not be changed.
What Are the Real Reasons Why the Amendment Should Not Be Changed?
There are a few reasons why the amendment should not be changed.
First, the amendment was written to protect the citizens of the United States from government infringement on their rights.
For example, the “right to bear arms” means that citizens can own a gun and not be denied that right.
The government cannot take away guns from law-abiding citizens. This is similar to “pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence because it protects citizens’ ability to pursue happiness even if it seems risky or wrong.
Protecting our rights separates a free country from a country ruled by tyrants.
Some people argue that they need this amendment to protect themselves; they believe certain restrictions will infringe on their right to bear arms and infringe on their ability to defend themselves and family because they cannot afford government protection.
They also argue that people should have a gun for the sole reason of protecting their home, which increases privacy in their homes, family lives and lives in general. The amendment should remain as the founders intended so Americans can protect themselves from dangers.
Many believe you should fix something when it’s not broken; therefore, alternatives can exist outside of changing the Constitution because it was implemented for a fundamental reason:
The United States has changed drastically since this amendment was first ratified; therefore, other options may be better for dealing with the issues brought up in the edit, such as mental health and gun control.
However, some people argue that the amendment should be changed because it doesn’t cover all gun rights. They claim that the amendment should be rewritten to protect all gun rights, not just the right to bear arms.
Secondly, any change to the amendment would have to be approved by a Constitutional Convention, which is not automatically allowed by our current system of government.
A constitutional convention cannot just convene on its own; a sequence must first approve it of constitutional amendments adopted by Congress and then by state actions. Under the current authority, there is no way to call for a constitutional convention regarding Second Amendment Amendments.
Thirdly, most ballots cast decided that the Second Amendment does not guarantee all people in America an individual right to bear arms.
Does this voting clarify that we do not think we are entitled as citizens in this great nation with tens of millions of guns currently being controlled need another amendment, maybe holding firearms even more?
This shows Americans feel they can always add more laws or restrictions, so they get reasonable government control, which has been proven over time will lead to poorer citizens’ rights and freedoms which reduces financial strength and spending power for retailers, hospitals, gas stations, or restaurants located near controlled political communities.”
Are There Any Other Rights That the Amendment Should Cover?
Other rights the amendment should cover. For example, the amendment should protect the right to bear arms for hunting and militia purposes.
Additionally, the amendment should defend Americans’ right to privacy in their homes.
Would a Rewrite of the Amendment Be Constitutional?
There is no definitive answer but a few reasons why a rewrite of the amendment might not be constitutional.
First, it would likely be unconstitutional to change the amendment without getting approval from a constitutional convention. This would involve a process not currently allowed under the United States Constitution.
Second, if a rewrite of the amendment were to be approved, a majority of the states would have to be approved to be ratified into law. This process is not currently allowed under the US Constitution.
Would a Constitutional Convention Be Necessary to Make a Change to the Amendment?
There is no clear answer as to whether or not a constitutional convention would be necessary to change the amendment.
Some believe that a constitutional convention would be required because of the number of modifications in the Constitution.
Some think it would be unconstitutional to change the amendment without being approved by a constitutional convention.
What Are the Consequences of Changing the Amendment?
If the amendment were to be changed, there would be many consequences. For example, it would mean that people could not own rifles or shotguns and purchase them from a government-approved dealer.
It would also mean that people who owned guns wouldn’t use them in public, as they would likely need a license. These are just a few examples of the consequences of such a change.
FAQs
What Is the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution?
The amendment was written to protect the citizens of the United States from government infringement on their rights. It was ratified in 1791. What does this mean for gun rights?
The amendment protects the right of citizens to bear arms, which includes the right to purchase and use firearms. It doesn’t cover all gun rights, only the right to bear arms.
What Would Happen if the Second Amendment Were Repealed?
If the Second Amendment were repealed, all guns had to be removed from the nation, including the military; this would eliminate all soldiers and guards carrying firearms who protect that nation.
The government could also create laws to allow citizens to carry licensed guns. Although this is one option, it is doubtful that Americans would respond well to it because, as mentioned earlier in this paper, they should get rid of guns.
Also, keep in mind some states may not have laws that unlock firearms; hence, citizens who go out to a country frequented by wild animals remain unprotected.
It is essential for Americans’ protection and safety; moreover, it does not hamper the happiness or pursuit of joy propounded by the Declaration of Independence.
To obliterate, this amendment stripped away our methods for protecting against tyranny and lawlessness throughout History.