In spite of their effectiveness, these documents have numerous flaws. The second amendment and its ensuing argument, is an example of a flaw, divides the country into two distinct camps (Carlson 2). This essay will advocate for repeal of the law to state that each household should have a firearm.
Carlson asserts that the right for individuals in the U.S to bear arms has been the been the focus of various political debates (2). The debates revolve around the infringement of gun ownership by the U.S government. By restricting the possession of firearms, will the government be servicing its own selfish interests or is it simply being mindful about its citizen’s welfare. Do the government and its bodies, such as the senate, have the right to re-interpret this law to fit modern times (Gerber 4). This is considering the difference in time from when the law was first enacted.
Another question regards the effects that would arise from this re-interpretation. Would this new and modified law help U.S. citizens or simply worsen the current situation? The crime rates in the U.S. are not dropping anytime soon, and the right to bear arms is not a cause of this trend (Charles 13). The individuals who bear arms are not the perpetrators of crime. The thieves, murderers and other villains possess their firearms illegally. For this reason, should the government concentrate on the second amendment or the laws on purchasing? In my opinion, the latter needs to be stricter to curb the prevalence of crime perpetrated by illegal firearms.
The aforementioned fact of illegal firearms perpetrating crimes leads to the central argument of this essay. Charles continues to state that it should be universally established that families should be inherently granted the right to bear arms (14). Bearing arms assists families in protecting themselves from rapists, thieves and other thugs that