The day begins just like any other in a quiet, small town, when out of nowhere a suspicious man enters the local bank and confidently states that this is a holdup. All of the innocent bystanders inside the bank are physically incapacitated initially out of fear as the bank robber brandishes his intimidating firearm while giving directions to the civilians not to move or speak unless exclusively instructed to do so at his command. The man also warns them not to try anything sneaky or else he will be compelled to do something crazy. The suspect makes his way to the bank tellers at which point he aggressively grabs one of the employees by the shirt and demands they empty the vaults and hand over the funds to him. Meanwhile, one of the hostages
…show more content…
Constitution is derived from the traditions of England where in medieval times it was considered an obligation to bear arms. Later on this requirement was altered and became a right of the citizens. Both King James II and King George III attempted to disarm the Protestant English citizens and the colonists respectively, but to no avail. This is because everyone has the God-given right to self-defense. However, some critics dispute the wording of the Second Amendment and protest that the true meaning of it is the militia has the right to keep and bear arms as opposed to the common civilian. Contrary to this misguided belief, it is unconstitutional to disarm Americans and Grant Arnold elaborates on this in his article where he states “[o]ne of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia” (Arnold, 2015, p. 8). Nevertheless, the writers of the Constitution did not intend for a single person to own a superfluous amount of guns. To believe this would be incredibly irrational since the primary reason for owning guns is for self-defense and the sport of hunting. On a similar note, granting citizens the right to bear arms was never anticipated to be interpreted as allowing them to own military-grade weapons. This is because weapons of this nature serve no other purpose than to kill and in mass quantities, which is again, not the reason behind the right. My purpose is not to argue that Americans have the privilege of unlimited gun ownership because I realize that is unconstitutional as well; however, I do aim to protest that the citizens should be permitted access to obtaining a gun without unnecessary and time-consuming
Constitution is derived from the traditions of England where in medieval times it was considered an obligation to bear arms. Later on this requirement was altered and became a right of the citizens. Both King James II and King George III attempted to disarm the Protestant English citizens and the colonists respectively, but to no avail. This is because everyone has the God-given right to self-defense. However, some critics dispute the wording of the Second Amendment and protest that the true meaning of it is the militia has the right to keep and bear arms as opposed to the common civilian. Contrary to this misguided belief, it is unconstitutional to disarm Americans and Grant Arnold elaborates on this in his article where he states “[o]ne of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia” (Arnold, 2015, p. 8). Nevertheless, the writers of the Constitution did not intend for a single person to own a superfluous amount of guns. To believe this would be incredibly irrational since the primary reason for owning guns is for self-defense and the sport of hunting. On a similar note, granting citizens the right to bear arms was never anticipated to be interpreted as allowing them to own military-grade weapons. This is because weapons of this nature serve no other purpose than to kill and in mass quantities, which is again, not the reason behind the right. My purpose is not to argue that Americans have the privilege of unlimited gun ownership because I realize that is unconstitutional as well; however, I do aim to protest that the citizens should be permitted access to obtaining a gun without unnecessary and time-consuming