Constitutional Amendment Pros And Cons

Over two-hundred years ago, the first experiment into a true democratic state began in the United States of America, with the signing of the Constitution. The United States had just won a war against the oppressive British Empire, and a new nation was born out of the independence. The Constitution was written at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia Pennsylvania, which was convened from May 25th, of 1787, until the Constitution was signed on September 17th, 1787. This was the first time that free men came together to establish a set of laws to protect the formation of a new nation. The Constitution includes ten original amendments, which are commonly referred to as The Bill of Rights. These amendments however were not ratified until …show more content…
At this time it was expensive and hard to raise an army for protection, so this allowed the idea of the militias’ use for protection to live on. With the growth and power of the Federal government this would soon change. As time passed many of the state run militias became incorporated into the federal forces. Over time the federal forces developed and grew beyond the development of the militia style battle. Through this change in technology and the development of America as a military power, the argument of the right to bear arms began to emerge. The root of the debate is to whether or not the Second Constitutional Amendment is meant to protect an individual’s right to bear arms. The real question is do American citizens have the right to bear arms? If they bear this right then to what extent and what kind should be allowed. With the advancements in weaponry in modern times American citizens should have the right to certain arms for their own protection, but not the right to all weapons available. While the legality of ownership has been upheld this far for citizens in the United States the technology of weaponry has certainly changed. Every United States citizen should have the right to own weapons within reason because they have a right to protect themselves, weapons do not necessarily equate to violence, …show more content…
Roth concluded that “Several strategies may succeed in reducing gun murders, but rigorous evaluations are needed to ascertain their effectiveness. Among these are reducing firearm lethality (e.g., by banning certain types of ammunition), reducing unauthorized use (e.g., through combination locks on triggers, or sentence enhancements for burglary and fencing violations that involve guns), and educating the public about safe use and storage” (Roth, 2007). He concludes that not gun banning, but reform related to education and pursuing the criminality of illegal arms trade will curb gun violence in the United States. His overall conclusion from his findings is: “Where there is local support, priority should be given to three enforcement objectives: disrupting illegal gun markets; reducing juveniles ' access to guns; and close cooperation between the police and the community to set priorities and enforce laws” (Roth, 2007). Only by working together can the government and its citizens in the U.S. aim to curve violent crime. By limiting the rights of the legal citizens, the U.S. government does very little in preventing violent crime; perhaps only by stopping the illegal obtainment of weapons can they reduce violent crimes. Guns themselves do not kill people. It’s when weapons are placed in the hands of those who should not have them, those who will kill, that they kill someone