The Constitution has been described as a living document because of the changes which have taken place since its conception by our founding fathers. No right or freedom is absolute. While we tout this as one of the great selling points of our country they are not without their restrictions.
For example, the First Amendment which covers freedom of religion, speech, and the right to assemble peacefully all have some kind of limitation on them. The one that has the least restrictions in this group is the freedom of religion although those who are most likely to have this violated will be those of minority religions (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc.). Now for the second and third part of this amendment, there are several limitations. First of all, …show more content…
The one with the least restrictions if any at all is the Second Amendment and that is the one I believe needs restrictions. The Second Amendment states, “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.” When this was written and this country was founded it was by a militia, regular people, who assisted the army. Do we even have a militia anywhere? Is there an organized group of men and women who meet on regular basis to talk about how to support the army in case of invading forces? I understand the term has been defined and redefined over the years but seriously not every person should have this right. There are those who suffer from mental illness like the mother in Texas who shot her two teenage daughters killing them and in turn, she was killed by the police. This is not to mention felons, those being investigated by F.B.I and Homeland security, etc. Like many of the recent shootings, these are people who should have never been allowed to own any type of gun or handgun. So what is wrong with having background checks for gun ownership? According to the New York Times, 74% of National Rifle Association members (one of the largest pro-gun lobbyists) support universal background checks for gun ownership (Kristof). This number does not include 87% of non-NRA gun owners who also
For example, the First Amendment which covers freedom of religion, speech, and the right to assemble peacefully all have some kind of limitation on them. The one that has the least restrictions in this group is the freedom of religion although those who are most likely to have this violated will be those of minority religions (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, etc.). Now for the second and third part of this amendment, there are several limitations. First of all, …show more content…
The one with the least restrictions if any at all is the Second Amendment and that is the one I believe needs restrictions. The Second Amendment states, “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.” When this was written and this country was founded it was by a militia, regular people, who assisted the army. Do we even have a militia anywhere? Is there an organized group of men and women who meet on regular basis to talk about how to support the army in case of invading forces? I understand the term has been defined and redefined over the years but seriously not every person should have this right. There are those who suffer from mental illness like the mother in Texas who shot her two teenage daughters killing them and in turn, she was killed by the police. This is not to mention felons, those being investigated by F.B.I and Homeland security, etc. Like many of the recent shootings, these are people who should have never been allowed to own any type of gun or handgun. So what is wrong with having background checks for gun ownership? According to the New York Times, 74% of National Rifle Association members (one of the largest pro-gun lobbyists) support universal background checks for gun ownership (Kristof). This number does not include 87% of non-NRA gun owners who also