The second amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, so it had been a part of the Constitution since the beginning of the nation.  The amendment states, “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.”  This amendment is extremely short compared to other but has caused a huge amount of controversy for years.  The controversy arises from the second half of the amendment, which allows United States citizens to possess firearms.  The most recent decision regarding the supreme court and the second amendment comes from the case District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008.  The Supreme court stated, “Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.”  This decision further supported the amendment, and the debates still have not ceased.

Of course, the debate has much support for both sides.  The supporters of the amendment believe that there is no reason to remove the amendment because it has been there since the start and is one of the many rights of an American citizen.  The right to bear arms gives citizens many advantages such as personal security.  Allowing a citizen to possess a gun means that they can protect themself and their property.  Personal security is one of the strongest arguments for keeping the second amendment.  Why should we hinder an individual’s safety?  The possibility a homeowner may have a firearm could deter criminals from even trying to rob the house in the first place.  This is also true for individual crimes such as muggings.  This deterrent can prevent some crimes from happening at all.  As mentioned in the previous post, another amendment would be required to take away the second amendment which is a rigorous and costly process.  Then if the amendment does become ratified, there is the possibility of a situation similar to the prohibition era to begin.  Without the ability to legally buy weapons, people may turn to black markets to acquire them.  Crime would also increase because of the decreased possibility of carrying a firearm.  The amendment holds many advantages and can make individual citizens even more safe.
The amendment does have plenty of cons for existing, as well.  The strongest case against the second amendment is the number of mass shootings that occur in the United States.  Two of the more recent and well-known shootings occurred at Stoneman Douglas High School and Las Vegas which resulted in the deaths of 17 and 59 people, respectively.  These are just two of the many mass shootings that occur and are partly due to the right to bear arms.  These shootings add on to the huge number of gun homicides within the United States.  Additional deaths are added from small crimes like muggings and burglaries because of how easy it is to acquire a firearm.   Inversely to guns being a crime deterrent, they can cause small crimes to result murder when the criminal feels threatened.  This has the possibility of causing a nonfatal mugging to turn in more gun deaths.  Although the possibility is strictly by chance, there’s no way of knowing how much it could reduce gun homicide, if at all.

Another argument made for removing the second amendment is based off of the fact that it is outdated.  The Bill of Rights were created nearly 250 years ago not long after the Revolutionary War.  During this time, America was still worried about enemies of the country and wanted civilians to have the right of protecting themselves.  Although this protection is still true for today, the firearms of the 18th century had extremely slow fire rates.  Muskets were the firearm of this era, which fired about 3-5 rounds per minute.  Assault rifles in today’s era can fire between 400-900 rounds per minute.  This incredible fire rate greatly increases the amount of rounds a shooter can fire before he or she is stopped.  Many argue that the founding fathers had no idea we would come to possess such fire power and made the amendment without thinking about the possibilities of mass shootings because of how limited their firearms were at the time.
I personally believe that the second amendment does greatly help citizens feel protected and some people do have true passions for weapons and shooting, but shootings are also a huge problem in the United States.  I think that citizens should be massively limited in their ability to purchase certain firearms and that there should be extensive regulations and background checks for acquiring a firearm.  Psychological tests should be required, and the weapons should be annually inspected after purchase.  All of this would need a lot of government regulation and money, but isn’t worth it for the safety of it’s citizens?  I know this is a very debated topic and each person brings their own side to it, so I’m curious to hear your opinions on the matter!