Ah, the Second Amendment of the United States - the right to keep and bare arms - that is, weapons.
Now, as someone who comes from a long line of farmers and hunters - who use weapons as a means to place food on the table (that is by either placing it directly on the table - like deer - or by killing pests that ruin crops or predators that kill livestock), with more that a few of them also serving in the armed forces as well as law enforcement, I am going to say that your argument here is very weak.
Let's get down to the brass tacks - you say that the Second is a leftover placeholder from when we didn't have a standing military force, and now that we have one, we don't need the Second. Let's do a quick check - US Army - 1775 (as the Continental Army - reorganized in 1784 as the US Army officially), Second - 1791 - We've had the Army longer than we've had the Second. Heck, the Coast Guard, in the form of the Revenue Marine, also predates the Second - 1790 for them, by the way. That being said, the Navy was formally established in 1794 (Continental Navy having disbanded in 1785), and the Marine Corp was formed in 1898 (Continental Marines having disbanded in 1783).
Now, the Second covers all weapons (not just firearms as some might think). It also allows one to have weapons for self-defense purposes - this could apply to protection from hostile humans, or hostile wildlife. Also, a lot of things are weapons, or could be easily used as weapons - the knife used to cut food, the hammer for pounding nails, the baseball bat for Little League - and that's not including the hunting weaponry, that is things like Compound Bows and Crossbows, and Muzzleloaders.
As it is, your argument, which boils down to "We have the Army to protect us. We don't need weapons." is rather weak. I mean, what if you live out in the middle of nowhere, and let's suppose that some person has decided to come after you, planning to kill you. The problem with living out in the middle of nowhere is this - even with a 911 call, and the police coming to help you, it might take them 15-20 minutes to get there, and I'm not accounting for any traffic issues in a city, as even with the lights and such going, it could be a while. Now, you might be able to hide, but what if you can't, or they've already found you? Odds are, this person will have a weapon, and they will use it. So, how do you plan to fend them off? Now, perhaps you have the strength, skill, and capability to use some sort of unarmed fighting - you might be able to knock them out long enough to get away, or something. However, not everyone can rely on unarmed fighting as a viable option, and thus need something to even, or surpass, the odds - and that something is a weapon. This weapon could be a gun, or a knife, a hammer, a baseball bat, or a large selection of books, DVDs, movies, video games, full cans of food - anything that you can throw - or a broom that you could use to beat some sense into them.
So, keeping that in mind, do you really want to propose getting rid of the Second? Or, alternatively, are you going to do some more research, to show why the Second isn't needed, and strengthen the argument that you are fighting for? Something to think on.
Thoughts
I believe that more could be added to this. At the moment, this argument feels flat to me - I can easily prove the main aspects wrong with a quick Google Search. Impress me by putting in more effort - how are you going to persuade folks to your side when even a quick search disproves your big point? After all, we had a standing army years before the Second was ratified. Think about it.
Spelling and Grammar
I don't see any issues with spelling or grammar.
Well, this is the BIG BAD WOLF, and I howl at the moon every night.
HOWLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|