While in class I thought that this topic was very interesting, and I had a lot to say about it. When my Pro analyzed the 2nd Amendment it caught my attention because he was right in what he said. In the 2nd Amendment it says,
“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”.
There are three commas in this statement, each either being a pause or maybe even a mistake. When I say mistake I don’t mean a fault in text, but instead a, not too sure agreement. The founding father of this Amendment was uncomfortable with his proposal to the first congress. He was also uncomfortable with giving power to the militia back to the congress. The entire Amendment was to strip congress of power over the militia and give it to the states, where people can bear arms.
That was back then, when crime was not an issue in the USA. But today where most of your killings are due to guns; why should we still be able to bear arms? In a society were guns are easily purchased, and then I can totally see why people would feel it is necessary to be armed. If gun control was more strict having personal weapons banned and severe penalties imposed for illegal possession, I think it would create a society with less of a siege mentality. You will never stop gun crime, but you can reduce it greatly. I know you will find more murders with knives etc, but these will still be less because it’s harder to kill someone when it’s up close and personal. Guns make it too easy. Even suicides among the young in particular will decrease because yet again it is less convenient and does not require much effort, and with a gun there is less thinking time needed.