seems fair to be put through these test’s, if you haven’t done anything bad then there should be
nothing to worry about. But if you are a convicted felon, or have been to prison for a gun related crime, then
obviously the citizens aren’t
going to want you to have a gun. The citizens need to also take responsibility and not sell guns to random people that you know nothing about. Another problem with gun control is, if guns do get banned, if we do lose our Second amendment, then the same thing is going to happen that happened with the ban of alcohol in 1919. There are going to be bootleggers that smuggle the guns, sell them illegally, there will be more gangs then there are now, there is going to be a lot of fighting and a lot more death than if we were to just leave it alone and do our part as citizens to be responsible with the guns that we have. On June 26
, 2008, in the
District of Columbia vs Heller case
, the U.S. Supreme Court
said that the Second amendment promises individual’s right
to own firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home. It was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second amendment since
United States vs miller (1939).
The Supreme Court ruled in favor 5-4, so just barely making it legal to own a firearm in your own home. Ever since the ruling of this suit, people who are against gun control and the NRA have been getting ready to file many suits against gun control laws in many states and they believe because of the outcome of the
District of Columbia vs Heller
that these laws may be at risk in being taken down. Although it is good that Americans can have guns, whether they are for the protection of their home, hunting, or just having them because they are cool to have. There
The Second Amendment - The Right To Bear Arms Essay
2183 Words9 Pages
The Second Amendment And The Right To Bear Arms
Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being…show more content…
These gun control advocates argue that the Second Amendment grew out of the colonists’ fear of standing armies and their belief that having militias that were composed of ordinary citizens was the surest way of maintaining their freedom (3).
The opposite side of this debate consists of those who claim that the amendment guarantees some sort of individual right to arms. This view comes from the literal wording of the Second Amendment, which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Along with this argument, the NRA and other groups in opposition of gun control argue that the first, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments are all constructed to refer to the citizens as individuals and not as a collective state. These gun advocates feel that if one is to give a rational interpretation of the collective view to the constitution, then one would have to assume that the Framers referred to the individuals in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments; to the states in the second amendment, and then separated the states and the people in the tenth amendment, although they feel that this was inconsistent with the wording of the second amendment (5).
Proponents of strict gun control laws, including Handgun Control Inc., and Coalition to Stop Gun Violence argue that the Second Amendment