A Take on the 2nd Amendment – From a 14 Year-Old

US Constitution and the second amendment

For any firearms enthusiast, the 2nd Amendment is very precious to us. Not that it’s more important than any other Amendment to the Constitution, but it’s one of the most debated in recent memory. There are a number of articles on this site that cover the 2nd Amendment and we’re always looking for comments and insights from our readers. I often have conversations on the topic with friends and family. I come from a big family and extended family – 15 nieces and nephews, dozens of cousins and second cousins – so there’s a lot of opinions. One of my young relatives, 14 year-old Zack recently shared a paper he had to write for school. The assignment was to write an “argumentative essay” on a often debated topic. When I read his essay I was proud of him – for both his stand and his writing skills. I asked him if he would mind if I shared it on this website and he was happy to oblige. So, here is his perspective on the 2nd Amendment:

I think that the 2nd Amendment should not be banned, because guns save lives everyday, it is our constitutional right to own guns and if guns were not only legalized but encouraged America would be a safer place.

Civilians that own guns and guns in general save lives everyday. Guns are used 2.5 million times a year for self defense, Law abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves 2.5 million times every year.(Page 1 Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives) If you ban guns what good will that do? It will just get those 2.5 million people every year either hurt or killed, because they don’t have a good thing to protect themselves with. Think about that.

Civilians who own guns kill more crooks then cops do 1,567 to 606.(Page 1 Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives) that means when the cops can’t get there in time or things are escalating more quickly than they can handle you can protect yourself,and your family from harm. If you took that away people, good people will die. ⅗ felons polled agreed that a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun.(Page 1 Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives) this means that just owning a gun can save a life, you might not even have to use it.If guns were not only legalized but encouraged America would be a safer place. States which passed a concealed carry law reduced their murder rates by 8.5% (Page 1 Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives) This shows that if concealed carry laws were passed everywhere murder rates would go down and America would be safer. Approximately 1,570 murders 4,177 rapes 60,000 assaults and over 11,000 robberies are stopped each year if concealed carry laws are passed. (Page 1 Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives) I think that those are some pretty amazing stats because all of those people are getting saved and it’s making the crime rate drop, so all in all it’s making America safer if guns are not banned.

The Constitution has been around for hundreds of years and so many things have been changed but one of the things that has been around since it was first created was the 2nd Amendment: The right to bear arms. The Second Amendment protects an individual right that existed before the creation of any government. The Declaration of Independence made clear that all human beings are endowed with certain unalienable rights, and that governments are created to protect those rights.(The Six Things Americans Should Know about the Second Amendment by Richard W. Stevens) So this means that we have a right to own guns why should it change now? obviously they put it in their for a reason and it should be kept there.

I realize some people may disagree with me and they say guns are the issue and they cause all of the mass shootings, but you can’t blame all of the things that make up a mass shooting on the guns. The main reason for the mass shootings is because of the person doing it, and whether they have a mental disability or they have something else going on with them you can’t just blame guns for every bad thing someone does. and you can’t blame guns for all the worlds problems.

So in conclusion i strongly believe that the Second Amendment should not be banned because, guns save lives everyday, if we not only legalize but encourage guns, America would be a safer place. and it is our constitutional right to bear arms.

Sources:

1 – “The six things Americans should know about the Second Amendment.” 2008. 24 Mar. 2014 <http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm>

2 – “The six things Americans should know about the Second Amendment.” 2008. 24 Mar. 2014 <http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/six-about-2nd.htm>

Aug 4, 2014S. Lawrence

Comments: 6

ron larsen
8 years ago
Ok, so say you go out with a gun strapped to your side and a cop stops you if you have license to carry a gun and you say no that the 2nd amendment I have a right to bear arms well some one will be going to jail right, as any one said that a cop lately.
Reply Cancel
chris from canada
9 years ago
why don’t you americans just rearrange the sentence structure to get a more clear understanding of what is being said without the commas? example: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed because it [or they, the armed citizenry] is/are necessary to the security of a free State.” or “it may be necessary in the future for a well regulated militia to guarantee a free state [or state of freedom] throughout the land [personal, city, state or country], therefore regulated citizens should not be banned from firearms ownership” ………personally, i think that we canadians have a better following of that concept then americans because we mandate firearms knowledge and firearms safety and instruction in the firearms law and some rudimentary training before firearms ownership. our entire population of firearms owners in canada are more closer to a well regulated militia then the majority of american gun culture of “buy a gun and have some fun” or “buy a gun in case you gotta shoot someone.” i have said it before and i will say it again, americans are giving out firearms licenses with every birth certificate, how stupid! you give them to the mentally ill as soon as they are born. you give them to angry husbands that just got divorced or separated. we canadians at least try not to from the very start. i see it as lazy and selfish gun ownership to not be willing to accept a small inconvenience to save many many many innocent lives. yes our system is not perfect but it is better in my opinion. i dont think the world thinks of shootings and violence in the streets when it thinks of canada. personally i process a license for all types and classes of firearms and when i purchase a firearm i research, memorize, transport, practice, and shoot and store it within the limits of the law and according the international safety. what the hell is wrong with that? i will tell you this,… many knee-jerk reactions by emotional citizens and ill-planning government officials has placed “some” stupid and unnecessary burdens on responsible gun owners like myself. but giving the right to own firearms to babies is just plain idiocy on an unparallelled level and is not what your founding fathers intended. they specifically said “well regulated” which to me means trained or with at least the most basic of training “to be able to satisfactory respond in case of emergency!!!” …i hope i do not come across as angry. 🙂 maybe something else to think about would be that your founding fathers knew that liberty and freedom started in each individual person, so that if all individuals were taught the basic principles of their inherent and God given rights, then each could protect themselves and the nation as a whole. seems correct that if each person worked toward establishing justice and also to ensure domestic tranquility then everyone is protected, right? so can you go door to door and teach this or do you need to train everyone at once in a group [militia]? seems obvious the founding fathers might be saying to train large groups of citizens in the proper ideas and use and safe handling and storage of firearms so that citizens can later protect freedom, either personal or national. remember they just supposedly defeated england and there was a great threat of being at war once again soon and the government also had plans of westward expansion and domination so denying guns to settlers moving west would make america’s history of battling naive american indians, well…..not easy….. there is so much to consider that it is fascinating and difficult. it is a wonderful discussion topic. 🙂
Reply Cancel
- Firearm Advocate
  8 years ago
  For someone who is criticizing Americans for their English, you sure don’t seem to grasp the most basic of English sentence rules, such as capitalizing the first word of each sentence.
  Second, it is extremely disingenuous to suggest that “americans are giving out firearms licenses with every birth certificate”. (again, basic grammar rules – capitalize “Americans” as a proper noun). Firearm rights may not have been captured in the Canadian constitution, but they were in the U.S. constitution. The exact nature of those rights has been under constant debate in the U.S. over the last decade, and I’ll thank you to butt out of our national issue as you fail to realize that firearm ownership is not something that is bequeathed as a privilege, but is a constitutionally given right in the U.S. I agree that greater responsibility is needed as part of gun ownership and, perhaps, requiring training just like it is required of vehicle owners, would be a good step in the right direction. (BTW – an estimated 40k – 50k people are killed in auto related accidents every year in the U.S. alone, but I certainly do not hear anyone debating whether or not car ownership should be banned).
  Third, the militia members of the time that the Constitution was written owned their own firearms and were key to winning our freedoms and liberty that we now enjoy. Stating that the U.S. is “giving out firearms licenses with every birth certificate” is incorrect since firearms are not licensed to begin with. Some states and cities require registration of firearms, but there is no licensing (unless you’re counting firearms dealers).
  Reply Cancel
Jim Leydon
9 years ago
The full Second Amendment reads, “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.” While I do not completely disagree with you, I cannot completely agree either. The focus of your comments lies in only the last four words of the amendment. Dangerous stuff when talking Constitutional Law. You don’t even mention the first four words, “A well regulated Militia”, which may, in fact, be more important. Also, when speaking Constitutionally, “the people” is often a reference to the collective, not just the individual; to wit, “We The People…” in the Preamble to the Constitution.
The second part of the amendment that states “…being necessary to the security of a free State…” also confuses the matter because the people are not the State. It should be pointed out that the Founding Fathers capitalized the word ‘State’ there, indicating a proper noun, so they are referring to either the individual States (Colonies) or to the Country itself. This has been the matter of debate by judges, lawyers and scholars for more than a century. Men and women (more learned, well-spoken and knowledgeable about Constitutional Law than you or I) have wrestled over the true meaning of the amendment, and still it defies easy categorization. I also suggest you ponder the original language of the Second Amendment as written by James Madison (original author of the Bill of Rights). It read, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person,”.
Unfortunately, I find your comments to be more of an uninformed diatribe than legitimate Op/Ed of the subject. You preface an uninformed stance about the Founding Fathers’ intent on gun ownership upon the incomplete and myopic illumination of just four out of twenty-seven words in the Amendment. Your assertion (that all laws which restrict some or any aspect of gun ownership are illegal or unconstitutional) is just plain absurd. I’m pretty sure that even the most avid hunter would agree that there is no legitimate use for a rocket launcher outside of the military. Likewise, you are wrong about the ability to change the Constitution. The Constitution (and the Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part) can be changed, a fact that is provided for in Article V in the main body of the Constitution itself! I’m sorry to say that your interpretation of the Second Amendment is found to be lacking sufficient substance to possibly be viewed as an accurate portrayal, or understanding, of the minds of our Founding Fathers. They out-thought 99.999% of us more than 200 years ago. You clearly have not caught up to them yet and I certainly don’t pretend to. I prefer to leave that to the judges, lawyers and scholars who actually study the subject and get paid to do so.
I do believe in the private citizen’s right to own guns, but don’t believe saying the Government of the United States is acting illegally because four words get referred to, out of context, is in any way helpful to the debate.
Reply Cancel
- A Gun Guy
  9 years ago
  Not that your arguments are not valid, Jim, but did you miss the part that stated this was written by a 14-year-old boy?
  Reply Cancel
Jim
9 years ago
There are 4 words in the 2nd amendment that make it impossible, illegal and unconstitutional for anyone, including Congress and or the President to ban or do away with the 2nd amendment. Those 4 words, “shall not be infringed” make this impossible.
Right now the government is operating illegally by making people file paperwork to buy a firearm and making you pay for a background check. This is an infringement on your 2nd amendment rights.
The government restricting different types of firearms and magazines you can have is aninfringement on your 2nd amendment rights.
The use of the ATF, Alcohol, tobacco and firearms, police force is an illegal arm of the government. They are an infringement on your 2nd amendment rights. There is nothing in the constitution that allows any type of police force to whatch over firearms.
The restriction of having to have a tax stamp to own a machine gun is an infringement on your 2nd amendment rights.
All laws, rules and regulations and case code the government uses are also illegal and unconstitutional. They are all an infringement on our 2nd amendment rights.
We the People are allowed to have anytype of firearm we desire including any type of firearm that the military posses. This means that you can have, if you can afford the price, a military tank, rocket launcher with rockets, Anything that any military has,we the people are aslo allowed to have.
If the government were to try to amend the 2nd amendment, that would be an infringement on our 2nd amendment rights.
If the government were to abolish the 2nd amendment, that would also be an infringement on our 2nd amendment. The government can do nothing to change the 2nd amendment. The forefathers were very smart in adding those 4 words, shall not be infringed, so that it could never be changed. They did not do this to any of the other amendments, only the 2nd amendment like they like they could see into the future and knew something like this might happen.
Reply Cancel