Of all the issues that plague America today, one of the most significant problems is gun control. As a result of mass shootings and in particular, school shootings, gun control is now an issue that dominates political talking points. One side wants to ban the use and sale of what they call “assault weapons” and the other side claims that they have a right to own those types of firearms.
The 2nd amendment, which was written in 1791, has been a point of contention for many years. Each side wants to be able to interpret these words in a way that will benefit their party. The text states: “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.” (Second Amendment – U.S. Constitution, n.d.). The problem is the interpretation of “A …show more content…
In 1939, the United States v Miller case stated that you could not keep a sawed-off shotgun because it is not a weapon that would be used in a “well regulated Militia” (United States v Miller, n.d.). In 2016, Caetano v. Massachusetts, states that the 2nd amendment protects all bearable arms (Caetano v. Massachusetts, n.d.).
There are multiple ways that this issue can be resolved. Some of the most popular include banning guns, requiring background checks for the sale of firearms, and some people want to do nothing at all.
Guns have legitimate uses here in the United States, and the argument that we should ban them all is based on the ignorance of those legitimate uses. Such cases might include rural living, sport, and household protection. In some areas of the U.S., such as Alaska, where bears roam rampantly, it is dangerous to venture outside without a gun. People like to use guns to target practice and the ability to protect your house, and your family is critical. As you can see, outlawing all guns would create a host of other problems that would then need to be
The 2nd amendment, which was written in 1791, has been a point of contention for many years. Each side wants to be able to interpret these words in a way that will benefit their party. The text states: “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.” (Second Amendment – U.S. Constitution, n.d.). The problem is the interpretation of “A …show more content…
In 1939, the United States v Miller case stated that you could not keep a sawed-off shotgun because it is not a weapon that would be used in a “well regulated Militia” (United States v Miller, n.d.). In 2016, Caetano v. Massachusetts, states that the 2nd amendment protects all bearable arms (Caetano v. Massachusetts, n.d.).
There are multiple ways that this issue can be resolved. Some of the most popular include banning guns, requiring background checks for the sale of firearms, and some people want to do nothing at all.
Guns have legitimate uses here in the United States, and the argument that we should ban them all is based on the ignorance of those legitimate uses. Such cases might include rural living, sport, and household protection. In some areas of the U.S., such as Alaska, where bears roam rampantly, it is dangerous to venture outside without a gun. People like to use guns to target practice and the ability to protect your house, and your family is critical. As you can see, outlawing all guns would create a host of other problems that would then need to be