Differing Interpretation on 2nd Ammendment on Gun Control in U.S.

826 Words4 Pages
Gun control policies regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession and use of firearms. In The United States the issue of gun control has been a hot topic for many years. The second amendment to the constitution "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" means that individuals may own guns, not just police and military however; Democratic lawmakers believe this may not be the way the amendment was intended to be interpreted. One problem with this issue is determining the rights of the people as they were intended by our forefathers. Since 1791 Americans have had the right to keep and bear arms, the misuse and illegal acts of criminals have brought this right under “fire”. In January 2004, three authors reprinted and analyzed dozens of Supreme Court cases that have referenced the Second Amendment. Their conclusion? "These cases suggest that the Justices of the Supreme Court do now and usually have regarded the Second Amendment ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms’ as an individual right, rather than as a right of state governments." (Kopel, 2014) Everywhere you look in America, people are trying to make life safer and then the latest massacre happens and we say “that’s America”. Would a ban on fire arms for the public decrease the number of firearm deaths and keep the people safer? Do we need tighter restrictions on gun ownership? “The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak,” “The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique cli...

... middle of paper ...

...es than those with weak or no gun regulation (Snyder, 2014). Guns don’t kill people, just as pencils don’t fail tests, cars don’t cause drunk drivers. In all of these examples it is obvious that the object is just that, an object which in some cases is used to harm someone, just as a car is the object used in a drunken driving accident. When put into the hands of people who make bad decisions these objects become dangerous and deadly. Criminals who commit such acts are exactly that, criminals. They are breaking the law when they choose to shoot someone, taking away the right to own a firearm is not going to stop them. They will still break the law and obtain firearms illegally. I have never heard any accounts of a criminal stating “I was planning to shoot someone next week and then I realized that it was against the law to possess a firearm so I guess that’s out!”

More about Differing Interpretation on 2nd Ammendment on Gun Control in U.S.

Open Document