We should rewrite the Second Amendment
Danielle England and Kori Nunes Danielle England and Kori Nunes are eighth graders at Roosevelt Middle School.
Their essay took first place for grades 6-8 in the annual Constitution and Bill of Rights Essay Contest sponsored by the Bristol County District Attorney's Office and The Standard-Times.
"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."
This is the all-familiar Second Amendment. This amendment, along with the first 10, came into affect on Dec. 15, 1791, and James Madison was the author. When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each state had its own well-regulated-militia in which its associates were held accountable to an assorted set of requirements. This was meant to say that it was a constitutional right for militias to have possession of a weapon for self-defense without being told otherwise.
Unfortunately, people eventually took advantage of this right and started carrying weapons and saying that the Second Amendment gave them the OK.
Because the population of these horrific people is growing constantly, it's hard to trust anyone with the right to keep and bear arms.
Back when the Constitution was adopted, the Second Amendment was relevant. It made sense back then because they had militias, an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
They also had more complex guns that required strength and knowledge to operate.
Today we don't really have militias,
so there isn't any logical reason to have the right to keep and bear arms because we now have standing armies (professional armies), and a National Guard for local protection. Also, back then the Founding Fathers spoke differently than we do today.
They worded things broadly and not as specifically as they should have. You could even say it is the most confusing and misunderstood amendment of them all. If the Second Amendment were to be rewritten today, it would have been worded differently.
Everyone has an opinion on the Second Amendment. Some people might believe that the amendment would be beneficial in the area of self-defense. There was a debate about whether the amendment was appropriate to have been included in the Constitution. This argument stills goes on today. There were and still are people who believe we should keep the Second Amendment because they think they should have the right to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their families.
Then there are people, like us, who believe the world would be a better place if we didn't have the Second Amendment. Some people think that it's ridiculous that people like us think that way, because not everyone follows the law, so people would still find ways to acquire a weapon to hurt themselves or someone else. This argument has been going on for quite some time.
Our views regarding this controversy would have to be that we think we should get rid of the Second Amendment altogether. If not that, then change the way it is composed to something that is put into words we use today, to make clear to the people the actual meaning. We know some people will think that it won't change anything to just remove the amendment but America could become a safer place for people to live. They also could just say that people could have a gun in their house for self-protection, but keep it out of the reach of irresponsible people in the family, and only rifles or shotguns should be allowed. Handguns are simple to operate, and rifles and shotguns are too big for infants and small children to use.
Another way we could prevent gun violence is to make personalized guns that would fire only for an authorized user. This can be accomplished through a variety of user-recognition technologies — for example, fingerprint readers — that can be built into the design of the gun. Unless the firearm recognizes its authorized user, it is unable to fire. In the neighborhoods around New Bedford, there have been many shootings. If people hadn't been carrying around guns, most of these shootings would never have happened.
The following is from the American Academy of Pediatrics Web site.
"In 1997, 32,436 firearm-related deaths occurred in the United States, of which 4,223 of the victims were children and adolescents younger than 20 years of age. Handguns continue to account for the majority of deaths and injuries from firearms in the United States. Compared with the period from 1980 through 1985, death rates from firearms for children and adolescents increased by 31.8 percent during 1986 through 1992, primarily as a result of increases in the number of homicides. The data from 1993 through 1997 indicate a decline each year in the overall number of deaths and death rates from firearms. For all ages, the rate of firearm-related deaths fell in 1997 to 12.12 after peaking in 1993 at 15.36 per 100,000. In 1997, firearm-related deaths for adolescents 15 through 19 years of age decreased from 28 in 1994 to 18.84 in 1997. This decrease establishes a downward trend after nearly 10 years of increase."
This segment tells us that many deaths were caused by guns, and the majority of those deaths were cause by handguns. These are the reasons why we would like to remove or rewrite the Second Amendment and stop gun violence in America.
8th graders want to toss the 2nd
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by 5stringJeff
