There is a group of Americans out there that believe the solution too many of our interior problems are harsher laws and stricter enforcement; that we should put our trust in the hands of the government. But just how many more laws will it take till everything is perfect? How more of our freedoms do we need to loose, how many more government law enforcers will it take to relieve us of all crime? It is impossible to stop all crime; no country out there has a zero percent crime rate. Even trying to stop the illegal distribution of fire arms is an impossible task. But there is another group of Americans that I think do not get much attention to their point of view, even though the majority of people are unsure of what they should do these people strongly believe in their way. They believe in carrying concealed guns.
United States
United States
United StatesThese Americans can tell you that the second amendment is in place to protect the little guys from tyranny.
The second amendment says "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." (The Cato Institute) There are many different ways to interpret this phrase, but the ones that make more sense talk about how the constitution was written to keep the government in check, and the right to keep and bear arms was written for the people to stop tyranny. After becoming independent form the crown of England the founders decided that having a strong central government is not good, because it would have too much control. The Untied States of America is here because of its people; we created this country and gave our selves the power to overthrow...
What is the meaning of the second amendment?
This essay suffers from two significant problems. First, the writing is not well polished.
Consider a few examples:
"the solution too many of our interior problems" [too many "o"s]
"After becoming independent form the crown of England" [independent form?]
"because fear of the military." [?]
"so it can have free rang to go to war" [and what is free rang?]
More seriously, the line of reasoning that this person uses runs somewhere between paranoia and barbarism. If citizens arm themselves, the government will not lie to us. The government for the last eight years has been in the hands of NRA sympathizers, and if has set records lying about everything. As for the notion that some vast conspiracy of "liberals" is allowing crime to flourish as a means of suppressing freedom, I find this canard somewhere between laughable and obscene.
As history, as law, as sociology, as political science, this essay is a failure.
0 out of 0 people found this comment useful.