Term Paper: We Should Abolish the 2nd Amendment

Pages: 5 (1506 words)  ·  Bibliography Sources: 1+  ·  Level: College Senior  ·  Topic: Law - Constitutional Law  ·  Buy This Paper

2nd / Second Amendment

Why the 2nd Amendment Should be Abolished: An Economic Perspective

Hundreds and thousands of dollars have been spent in recent years arguing for or against the right of individuals to bear firearms. Gun control and related legislations is often a hot topic among private citizens and government officials alike. The impact gun control legislation and gun use has on the economy waxes and wanes with changes in society and changes in laws related to gun legislation. No other piece of legislation is more critical to the issue of the right to bear firearms than the second amendment. One could also argue however that no other piece of legislation is more time consuming, wasteful and unnecessary than the second amendment, which by and large should be abolished. The second amendment does not have any practical application in today's society. This paper will discuss these ideas and more below.

Analysis of the Impact of the Second Amendment

The second amendment to the constitution of the United States specifically states that "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" (Caselaw, 1).

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution allows any individual to posses or use a weapon if such use is related to the preservation of a well-regulated militia. There are many that argue that the Second Amendment is no longer relevant in today's society. Theories suggests that the Second Amendment can be interpreted in a variety of ways. According to one view, the Amendment may protect the American people in a collective sense by "forbidding the federal government from disarming state militias" (Dorf, 1). This view suggests that people have no right to bear arms outside of the context of a regulated militia, which may be comprised of a group of citizens defending their state and personal freedoms.

However, another view suggests that the Amendment holds people as individuals and thus protects their right to bear or possess private firearms (Dorf, 1). Those firearms may be called upon for the good of the public, but private citizens may also use their weapons for personal self-defense or other issues (Dorf, 1).

Attorney General Ashcroft has in the past accepted the definition that the amendment protects the right of private citizens as well as the collective right of individuals to bear arms (Dorf, 1).

Is the Second Amendment however, an economically sound amendment? It is not, for a variety of reasons. The primary reason the amendment should be banned is that it is not applicable and does not have practical implications for society today. There is little chance that a threat of military action by a standing army exists against the people of the states today (Dorf, 1). The amendment has resulted in an increased financial burden as national-security related surveillance measures have had to be undertaken due to increasing numbers of citizens that do bear arms (Dorf, 1; Tevault, 1).

The Second Amendment has also resulted in an inordinate amount of attention to gun control and gun laws, costing advertisers, news reporters and the citizens at large hundreds of thousands of dollars, whether to protest gun control or support the amendment.

DeBose points out that Bush is one of many presidents that has urged the Senate and Congress to pass bills that would protect gun dealers and manufactures from lawsuits that are in all reality frivolous (1). Lawsuits will abound as long as the rights of individuals and collective organizations to own firearms are protected, which is exactly what the Second Amendment does. Such lawsuits cost individuals and the government thousands of dollars as well in the long run.

In contemporary society, there really is no place for the Second Amendment. Most people are set in their ways with regard to their support of or disproval of an individuals right to bear arms. People are going to acquire guns one way or another. Right now there are an infinite number of costly mechanisms in place designed to prevent people who are not supposed to purchase guns from getting them. Holding periods, background checks and other methods of protection cost sellers tons in the way of financial resources to ensure that the people purchasing guns are 'safe' or deserve to have them (DeBose, 1). Yet it is often these very people that end up harming themselves or others because of guns, and it is these same people that end up entangled in frivolous lawsuits when someone they know or love is harmed via improper use of a gun.

From an economic standpoint one can only agree that there is no place for the Second Amendment in modern society. There are many proponents of gun rights that would claim that for every person harmed by a gun there are three that might have been saved by one (DeBose, 1). Perhaps a more practical approach to gun control would be to establish individual laws that require training for all citizens interested in owning and purchasing guns. This may cut back on the financial burden inflicted when a gun harms innocent victims accidentally. Proper training should be required of all individuals who desire ownership of a weapon that has the potential to kill.

Regardless of whether or not the Second Amendment exists, individuals who need to purchase guns for improper or harmful uses will find a way to purchase their guns regardless of whether or not a law is in place preventing or encouraging ownership. The government has already wasted time and energy attempting to enact new laws to clarify the Second Amendment or infringe restrictions that would limit individual's freedoms based on this amendment. The economy and the society at large would benefit if less time and money were spent interpreting and clarifying this law, and more money were invested in educating citizens about the potential benefits and potential hazards of individual and group arms ownership.

More time should be spent investing in the people of this nation and their ability to protect themselves. If the government would concede that all people had the right to bear arms, they could focus their attention more on protecting citizens from careless errors or accidents, facts of life that exist when people have the right to bear arms. Needless lawsuits and medical expenses incurred at the hands of someone inexperienced with firearms could be avoided if more training and education were provided society at large with regard to firearms.

Conclusions

In contemporary society, it is very unlikely that an event would occur that would require the citizens of this country to rise up as a militia to protect their freedoms, particularly from the government. There are already numerous precautionary measures in place that protect the individual rights and freedoms of the American people. It seems far too much energy and money is spent worrying about interpreting what the Second Amendment does and does not mean. People often forget that the Second Amendment was written in a time when a militia was a reality, in fact a necessity to protect the rights of the people.

Individual gun ownership is inevitable, whether the government sanctions it or not. People will find a way to purchase guns if they believe their safety is contingent on it. The economy would benefit from more lax rules related to gun ownership. At this point in time the Second Amendment, though at first glance seems to support gun ownership, is truly irrelevant to the needs of society today. More refined laws should be established that outline the rights of individuals citizens in times of peace and in times of conflict. Specific legislation should be developed that encourages training and communication for people that desire the right to bear arms.

Time and effort… [END OF PREVIEW]

Stakeholder Profile A-Level Coursework


Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 Term Paper


Knock and Announce Term Paper


Death Penalty and New Studies of Disparate Racial Impact Research Paper


Concept of Equal Protection Term Paper


View 73 other related papers  >>

Cite This Term Paper:

APA Format

We Should Abolish the 2nd Amendment.  (2005, April 24).  Retrieved November 14, 2019, from https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/abolish-2nd-amendment/88730

MLA Format

"We Should Abolish the 2nd Amendment."  24 April 2005.  Web.  14 November 2019. <https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/abolish-2nd-amendment/88730>.

Chicago Format

"We Should Abolish the 2nd Amendment."  Essaytown.com.  April 24, 2005.  Accessed November 14, 2019.
https://www.essaytown.com/subjects/paper/abolish-2nd-amendment/88730.