The Pros And Cons Of The Second Amendment

719 Words2 Pages

The Second Amendment has always been met with much debate on whether gun control is constitutional or unconstitutional. The framers of the Second Amendment have left many people with different opinions on what its true intent was. Charles L. Blek Jr. and Joseph Sorban have two different views with many over lapping ideas and use court rulings, Second Amendment history, and past events in their articles to help support their positions. Sobran believes that any legislation on gun control is a direct violation of the people’s constitutional rights and that everyone should be allowed to bear arms. He views the Second Amendment as a principle and not that of an ordinance and that it was meant to grant the right to bear arms to all of the citizens. He mentions it clearly forbids the federal government intruding on the …show more content…

He compares how the NRA hides behind the First Amendment to protect their misrepresentation of the right to bear arm isn’t all that different from yelling fire in a crowded room. The First Amendment has its limits and shouldn’t be used as a shield to spread false ideas. He argues that the NRA believes that the Second Amendment grants unconditional right to all individuals to possess firearms. He also feels that the NRA turns a blind eye to safety concerns with an unregulated firearm policy. Sobran uses the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to further solidify his point. He points out using the Tenth Amendment is that since the framers did not directly give congress power to regulate gun control, they have no power. He affirms that all powers not delegated to the federal government are to be given to the states and the people. Using the Ninth Amendment, Sobran states that the right of self-defense was among one of the original rights retained by the

Open Document