The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states,"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, theright of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"(Witkin). Aquestion that might be asked upon this would be, does it mean that all peopleshould have the ability to possess whatever arms they wish?Since the age of the Civil War weapons that are being producedhave become more deadly. In the late 1700's there really were not anydeadly weapons such as handguns, but they did use muskets, which, werenot very deadly. The crime rate has been rising, which is causing someissues for the people who use guns often, but do not use them in acrimi ...view middle of the document...
I cannot still publish a newspaper article statingthat an authority figure is a drug dealer. I cannot do this because thefact to me is to be completely untrue. This same analysis can beapplied to the 2nd Amendment. It says that if the right to own a guninterferes with public safety, that right can morally be abridged, inorder to protect public safety (Internet "A Case for Gun Control).There are also legal arguments on why the 2nd Amendment is notabsolute. Throughout the history of the United States, there have beenmany court decisions that have limited the right to keep and bear arms.There was a case in the early 20th century that limited the right toown certain classes of weapons. Recently, we have the following fromthe United States Courts of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, which indicatesthat the clause about "a well regulated militia" does not mean that theaverage citizen is part of that militia. Since the 2nd Amendment saysthat the right 'to keep and bear arms' applies only to the right of thestate to maintain a militia, and not to the individual's right to beararms. There can also be no serious claim to any expressconstitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm. Althoughthe Supreme Court has not issued a clear-cut ruling on the 2ndAmendments rights, a decision made in 1992 said the conservativemajority stated, "Making a firearm without approval may be subjectto criminal sanction"(Sewell).Firearms have been part of the American tradition as protectionand as a means of hunting or sport. There has been a fast and steadyincrease in crime and the fight for the right to own a handgun. Manypeople feel that gun control violates the rights of the people that arestated in the 2nd Amendment. Some people think that controllingdistribution and sales and the registration of guns and the owners ofguns is necessary because of the homicide rate involving guns and theviolence by criminals using guns.Many people also believe that gun control violates the right ofpeople, which is given in the 2nd Amendment, which was stated thateveryone has the right to bear arms. The National Rifle Association,also known as the NRA, which is an opponent of gun control, argue that"the right to bear arms" is guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment andlicensing restrictions to penalize law-abiding citizens while in no waypreventing criminal use of handguns. It is also argued that by makingit difficult for guns to be bought and registered for the Americanpublic there is a threat to the personal safety of American familieseverywhere. Controlling the sale and distribution of firearms isnecessary because of the homicide rate involving guns. Gun control isalso wrapped in the series of social issues such as crimes and drugs.People against gun control feel that it is a violation to theConstitution to control the distribution and sale of guns and gunowners. It is also necessary for there to be certain limits on the waythose firearms are handled in this country because of the homic...