Bill Of Rights Argumentative Analysis

Unfortunately, the ambiguous nature of the Bill of Rights presents much debate on the contextual meaning of what these Rights protect and the extension of how far these protections go. One of the biggest issues faced today, is the interpretation of the Second Amendment: the right to bear arms. Many believe that this right extends to citizens and private use, but due to the nature of how the Bill was written. Others believe that this right only extends to a collective right, in that each State has the right to have an armed militia, in order to protect its sovereignty. But, for Justice Stevens the real argument is not whether or not these rights trickle down to the individual, but the scope of what these rights cover.
As noted in 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, where Dick Heller believed that the District of Columbia gun control laws violated his Second Amendment. The majority did agree that …show more content…
But, to view any form of regulation as unconstitutional is preposterous. There is a difference between an unmodified shotgun that follows regulation and a shotgun that has had its barrel and stock sawed off. The modification to the shotgun make it easier to conceal, which makes the nature of that device even more dubious. The Second Amendment does not protect the use of a firearm for illegal manner, nor does it protect those that do not follow federal restrictions. If deciding that Heller’s rights were violated, then anyone should be able to purchase a machinegun without obtaining a class III license. When examining D. C’s decision to ban handguns, one must take into account that D.C has had an issue with violent crimes (nearly three times higher than the national average). The handgun ban was not intended to strip its citizens of their Second Amendment rights, but to try and help curve the violent crimes that was plaguing the