“A free people ought…to be armed” – George Washington.
The study of the legislation of the United States of America is of particular value since many of the projects established in it may cause a double opinion. This happened with the Second Amendment, which allows American citizens to carry guns. Therefore, some people fully support this innovation, believing that it will contribute to raising the level of security. Other people may consider this innovation as a lever to increase armed crime. This work aims to study and substantiate the expediency of the Second Amendment.
First of all, it is necessary to gain an understanding of what a legislative innovation is. The Second Amendment was adopted in 1791 and was part of the Bill of Rights (Lund 81). The basis of this legislative act is that it protects the rights of citizens to bear arms or own weapons such as guns. After its introduction, a positive response was noted since many people still hold the opinion that it provides individuals with the opportunity to protect themselves in cases of extreme threat. Therefore, more and more people and states are currently inclined to believe that it is essential to have weapons for the purpose of self-defense. Sources note that only in a few states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, the possession of weapons should be justified (Halbrook 1). Consequently, it is assumed that during an armed robbery, people will be able to protect themselves with self-defense. At the same time, it is essential to remember that the use of weapons can be justified only in extreme cases.
It is worth emphasizing that there are also quite a lot of doubts about the Second Amendment. Further, most of the opinion is that increasing access to weapons can provoke an increase in armed crime. Research states that “the Second Amendment, like the First, should not be read to protect those who threaten unlawful violence” (Blocher and Vaseghi 112). Therefore, the opposite point of view suggests that this legislative innovation can be interpreted as justifying the use of weapons not for self-defense but in intentional threats and other crimes. Another reason for the controversy is the lack of complete specifics in the language used in the text of the amendment. Hence, it is noted that it is not clear if the legislation protects the rights of people or applies only to military organizations.
In conclusion, this work presented the rationale for the reasonableness of the application of the Second Amendment and its importance to society. This amendment gives citizens of the United States of America the opportunity to own their own weapons while protecting individuals at the legislative level. As an argument, it was said that this part of the Bill of Rights provides an opportunity for citizens to protect themselves in situations of maximum danger when state agencies cannot immediately provide assistance. Additionally, the academic paper provided the opposite opinion, which indicates the inaccuracy of the text of the amendment. Moreover, this view considers the Second Amendment as a driving force for increased crime due to increased access to weapons. Thus, we can say that this issue will be a topic for debate for a long time, but this work supports the opinion about the positive contribution of the Second Amendment to society.
Works Cited
Blocher, Joseph, and Bardia Vaseghi. “True Threats, Self-Defense, and the Second Amendment.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, vol. 48, no. S4, 2020, pp. 112-118.
Halbrook, Stephen P. “To Bear Arms for Self-Defense: A “Right of the People” or a Privilege of the Few? Part 1.” Federalist Society Review, vol. 21, 2020.
Lund, Nelson. “The Future of the Second Amendment in a Time of Lawless Violence.” Nw. UL Rev., vol. 116, 2021, p. 81.