A factually based argument written for the sole purpose to defend the second ammendment.
Throughout our brief history as a nation, we have had the guarantee of certain liberties. These liberties, which were set down in the Bill of Rights, include the right to keep and bear arms. Since our founding fathers' main reason for creating the Bill of Rights was to ensure our freedom as a people, this unalienable right is the foundation by which our history has been shaped. Is it possible that the government recently has begun to violate this basic right? The answer to this question is yes. The government has begun to infringe upon our rights. More specifically, the right to bear arms is being infringed upon. The government has taken advantage of the lack of historical knowledge among the masses by cleverly reducing our individual ability to possess firearms equivalent to that of our government agencies. They have done this in a very subtle way. The government has begun to place restrictions on our access to particular types of firearms and ammunition. These restrictions directly violate the second amendment to the Bill of Rights. To confirm this statement, we will discuss some of the current restrictions, as well as the government's reasoning behind these restrictions. Secondly, I will present our founding fathers' reasons why they included the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. In today's society, the government is vast and often intrusive. Generally, most intrusions are welcomed and in some cases even requested for the betterment of society as a whole. Occasionally, there are restrictions enacted by Congress that violate our civil liberties. Because such a blatant infringement would create great concern among voters, the restrictions are often developed over time, and portrayed as necessary for the common good of the people. Some examples include outlawing certain types of bullets and banning certain types of firearms. The government has been able to do this under several different premises, one being protection of person and property. The legislators suggested that we did not have a need for such an exorbitant amount of firepower when almost any current legal weapon would suffice. Another approach that has been used is the protection of our children, fueled by a recent rash of school shootings. Even though these appear to be sound arguments, close examination of the Bill of Rights clearly explains why these seemingly harmless restrictions are in fact a great danger to out democracy.
Amendment IX-Rights Retained by the People "The enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people (Constitution 8)."
The writer's usage of the word construed is a particularly interesting point. Its' very meaning implies interpretation. Clearly, the framers of the Constitution meant to leave no room to debate any of their hard earned liberties. Consequently, whatever premise the government uses, it is a violation of these liberties to infringe upon one right in favor of another. With this in mind, one must now begin to search for the true reason behind the placement of Amendment II-Right to Bear Arms in the Bill of Rights. Many people have been conditioned to believe various reasons behind the inclusion of the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. One commonly held notion is the necessity of personal protection from criminals. While this is one advantage of owning a weapon in today's society, the Framers would not have felt any need for personal protection from criminals. It was quite common for people to leave their doors unlatched, even while they were out. Another widely accepted theory is that of different time frames. Some argue that the second amendment was created during a time that a large number of people owned a gun, which they usually used for hunting. They go on to suggest that our society is so drastically different from that of life in the eighteenth century, the second amendment need not be so fiercely protected. After all, one needs only to stop by one of the three grocery stores located within a five-mile radius of their house and buy enough food to last them several days. Once again, there are some very good ideas about the origin of the right to bear arms; however, we must not allow for assumptions or interpretations under the ninth amendment. Fortunately, one only needs to read through the second paragraph of The Declaration of Independence to discover the reason for its addition.
"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed-That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government laying its' foundation on such principles and organizing its' powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness (Declaration 1). The Writers continue by saying But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security (Declaration 1)."
It is true that our government has not committed a long train of abuses; however, what will protect those hard fought freedoms if the government is no longer afraid of our ability to recognize when our rights are being denied? Not all restrictions currently in effect infringe on our right to ear arms, these include registration laws and proposed mandatory trigger locks. It is only those restrictions that create inequalities between the government and the people that are dangerous. To illustrate this point we can utilize a widespread idea held by a group of people known for their strong support of gum restrictions. Many different law enforcement agencies have explained that they require aggressive firearms if they are to succeed in leveling the playing field against the violent criminals who've acquired the stronger, more destructive weapons. The second amendment was designed to provide a means for an easier break from the governing apparatus than they, themselves, had endured. These agencies have clearly defined the danger of allowing such restrictions to remain in place. One day, we may wake up and find one rifle allowed per family along with an allotment of maybe a dozen bullets; in case we would like to hunt. Although extremely unlikely, should the need arise, we must consider how we would protect ourselves from the stockpile of fully automatic weapons our government agencies and police forces have amassed. The current representatives of the people have become masterful at ignoring the Framers' visions behind the Constitution. Instead, they create new visions that mold our political attitudes based on assumptions, not historical fact. It is our duty to remind those who have forgotten, that the true message is often in words used if one only takes the time to look.
Amendment-II, Right to Bear Arms "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall never be infringed (Constitution 8)."
I do concede that the Constitution was written in such a way that government corruption on a whole is nearly impossible; however, the Declaration of Independence has clearly defined our right and our duty, to protect the Constitution and our great nation. The Framers reinforced this individual obligation by including the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights. As a result, I believe the infringements should be declared unjust.