The right to bear arms, or more commonly known recently as owning a gun, is a right protected by the second amendment in the United States. If we are to challenge this through court ruling, we are challenging the constitution as a whole. If we change one amendment, where does it stop? There are other rights which would be infringed upon in the “name of safety”, if that is the mantle which people take to eliminate guns the possession of guns in the country. Rights such as the right to privacy which in some cases has already been infringed upon when the Bush administration enacted the patriot act, making it much easier for authorities to obtain a search warrant and to spy on American citizens. The idea of getting rid of the right to bear arms is another infringement on the rights that are protected by the constitution.
Through arguing the second amendment, one is challenging the constitution as a whole, some say that that right is outdated and that there is no real need to bear arms in this modern age, however they are missing the bigger picture. By saying that there is no need for one of our amendments, they are saying that there is no need for rights which are guaranteed by our constitution, particularly if they become “outdated”, as some think the second amendment has become. There is no such expiration date on any of the amendments in the constitution and so no rights can be outdated. To this many would look to the eighteenth amendment which was the amendment for the prohibition of alcohol, which was later repealed by the twenty first amendment. However, these two cases are entirely different. The eighteenth amendment was restrictive in nature in that it put a restriction on something that had been entirely legal, and there was really no solid evidence that taking it away through amendment would be justified. The second amendment on the other hand is used for the protection of the nation and of ourselves. If one wants to gain a little more protection, all they have to do is get a permit and own a gun which puts safety into their own hands rather than into the hands of others. Many people who do commit gun crimes are not legally allowed to own a gun because of past crimes.
Now, it is not permissible that people should own assault rifles or grenades, or any explosive for that matter, there has to be some form of upper limit on what is justifiable for self defense, and in the unthinkable case of perhaps national security if in the event there was an invasion. Weapons such as explosives and assault rifles are quite frankly overkill for the job that they would be employed for, which is personal security. Regular rifles and hand guns should be permissible, if not for protection then for the respect of the constitution.
Finally, it is naive to think that guns actually kill people. People are going to murder regardless of weapon; one would simply be trading shootings for stabbings, and beatings. There is a huge disconnect between pulling a trigger and saying that the gun actually is what does the killing. People kill each other, if not with a gun it would still happen. If people really think that guns are responsible for the murders that are carried out each year, they need to wake up.
The second amendment should be upheld for respect for the rights that are guaranteed by the constitution. There should be some restrictions on the types of weapons that can be owned; limiting them to what is practical. Now there is the issue of gun safety, children can get into accidents with weapons if the owner of the gun is not properly educated. There should be a lock on ones weapons or they should be left in a safe and not loaded so as to avoid and prevent accidents happening with children. Overall, there is no need to repeal the second amendment for the sake of safety.
“Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both”