Question

HURRY PLEASE

The United States Constitution is a living document in that it can be changed—but not without the majority of Congress’s approval. Since its inception, there have been more than 11,000 proposed amendments, but only 33 have made it out of committees and been sent to states for ratification. Of those 33, only 27 have been ratified and become a part of the Constitution. Ten amendments were accepted in 1791 (just three years after the document was put into effect); those amendments became known as the Bill of Rights.

Among those first ten amendments is the often quoted and frequently contested second amendment. In light of recent events and gun-related crime, many argue that it is time to alter the second amendment while others argue that this particular amendment guarantees a right that is irrevocable.

In 2014, the Washington Post proposed the addition of the words “when serving in the militia” to eliminate the debate. The second amendment would then read: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms [when serving in the militia] shall not be infringed.”

You have already read the six sources provided in the lesson, including any introductory information for each source. Now, synthesize information from at least three of the sources and incorporate it into a coherent, well-developed essay that argues a clear position on whether or not the second amendment should be altered to include any type of restrictive language.

Make sure your argument is central; use the sources to illustrate and support your reasoning. Avoid merely summarizing the sources. Indicate clearly which sources you are drawing from, whether through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. You may cite the sources as Source A, Source B, etc., or by using the descriptions in parentheses.

Answer 1

The prompt implies that the 2nd Amendment should be restricted in such a way that regulates the type of arms that the general public may have in hopes of creating what is a ideal "safe country". However, the 2nd Amendment is not in place simply as a byproduct of history, nor is it failing in serving the applicable requirements that were in place in the inception of the amendment. Nay, the 2nd Amendment serves the main purpose that it was prescribed to do, not only throughout history, but also even today. Firstly, it is important to define what is being stated inside the 2nd Amendment. Quote:

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.

The two ways to define such a statement is firstly the literal, and also the application of such a law in the ever-changing society. In the traditional sense of the amendment, the first part of the law establishes the framework of a military force, relegating such a job to the states as a state power. In today's society, it is not particularly what is being argued, as both sides of the political aisle calls upon the need and usage of weaponry in a police state (though one side simply relegates such a power when arguing the point of gun control, while arguing that the police force is inadequate in policing our community, and that it should be disbanded when arguing on the topic of police). The arguments, as such, contradict each other, and, in application, would call for the need of the 2nd Amendment, as it allows civilian individuals to provide protection against aggressors within their community.

The second argument that is implied by both sides is the historical elements of the 2nd Amendment. Those who wish to change the 2nd Amendment assumes that the need for such protection had already ended with the "civilizing of America as a whole", and simply allowing those who are placed in power to relegate the defense as well as the safety of the public. However, this is far from the truth in many cases. The average time for police response is around 10 minutes, and can be longer in actually searching and apprehending any criminals can be even longer (See Ulvade school crisis). A armed individual, whether as a legal owner or hired security, responds much quicker to the problem, and may lead to less casualties. A study by The Trace showed that at least 75.8% of shooters are successfully stopped by armed civilians (without police arriving), as well as 18.2% being stopped in a orderly amount of time. Armed security have a lower chance based on ALERRT, in which around 1/3 of cases with active security have been actually stopped by such force. It is also important to note that many shooting are from weapons that have not been legally obtained, either from the lack of a permit to use, or simply from the black market. As such, even if more laws are passed that regulates the flow of legal firearms, it simply does not stop the flow of illegal arms, and introduces more illegal firearms to the country, which in turn may create more incidents where a illegally owned weapon is used.

Simply put, banning the ability to purchase and own guns in a culture that had been centered around the ability to own a gun in the majority of her history is simply ludicrous. After all, in theory as shooters seem to target areas with less danger to themselves, having guns in the hands of average citizens would in turn limit the options of having a "easier" target, leading to a reduction of crime. Of course, if the shooter has a specific reason for such a target, they would not be stopped simply by the presence of firearms, however, if the target is simply general, it may lead to the shooter to not choose that area as a target.