The second amendment to our constitution states that Americans have the right to bear arms. Which means own firearms. The original intent was to have the weapons for defense. (Martinell, 2014) However in the wrong hand, firearms can be used to kill people. This makes people wonder, should the 2nd Amendment be repealed or changed. I believe the amendment just needs to be slightly changed because shootings come from mental health problems, the weapons today are too easy to kill a large amount of people with, and even if the amendment was repealed, people nuts would still find a way to kill others. To every person who decides to shoot up a school or public place, you’re crazy. Crazy meaning mental health plays the key role in the taking of lives. As in, the mental health of a shooter is the problem, not the gun he decides to use. In the 1999 Columbine High School shooting, both shooters were indeed mentally ill. (Metzl, 2015) Shooting people alone shows us that the criminal isn’t in the right state of mind, but even …show more content…
Those guns were thought of as enough to defend themselves, as that was a purpose of the second Amendment. In today’s world, we have machine guns and assault rifles and all kinds of weapons to make killings of mass amounts of people possible. There isn’t really another reason for a common person to own a machine gun except to kill several people in a short period of time. The Shooter choice of weapons isn’t every a one shot gun that the 2nd Amendment thought was sufficient for defense. The shooters choice is some type of machine gun that can shoot a lot of people, in a really short amount of time. For instance, the weapon of choice for the weapon for the Newtown Connecticut shooting was an AR-15 Rifle. (Reuters, 2014) There is no civilian purpose for a weapon like that. The second Amendment doesn’t however specify of weapons of that