I am fine with the idea of having a second amendment since it is logical to have an amendment between one and three but I am not okay with the wording that was written 200 years ago and made sense then but not now. If people want to have guns then they should write an amendment that says "we should have guns" instead of "a Militia is important for the Security of a State."
For example, we could ban guns entirely and only allow people to have swords and technically fulfill the requirements of the law since it doesn't say "the people have the right to bear ALL and ANY arms." While a gun is
a type of arm, we don't allow people to have cruise missiles just lying around, which are also
a type of arm, so clearly there is a legal precedent for allowing some arms and not others. Furthermore, we could argue that "the people" was referring to "the people of the Militia," and then define the "militia" as anything we want, such as "just the military and police," "people with a certain surname," or "nobody."
Finally, the amendment itself is logically unsound. Here is the text, for reference:
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 premise of the argument is that a well regulated [citizen] militia is necessary for the security of the state, and therefore we should have a citizen militia. However, it is obviously false that the having a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state, since it is clearly evident that there are countries that have made guns illegal or strictly controlled for citizens but are also clearly secure states.
Having read through the amendments, the second amendment appears to be the only one written
as a persuasive argument. I have no idea why it was written like this. It's hardly relevant if the amendment is logically sound or not, since the logical soundness of an amendment has no impact on it's legality (it is the law regardless). It is interesting fact though, and it's also a pretty silly thing for the Constitution of the United States to do.
It could easily be resolved by dropping the argumentative nature of the amendment, which would have no legal impact whatsoever on the ability of people to own guns and would also clear up one of the previous ambiguities regarding militias.
Poll