Gun Control Argumentative Essay

There has been lots of debate in the media recently over whether or not gun laws should be changed or not. All of the recent shootings have put many people in fear, but changing these laws will not change anything. Gun activists are still lobbying for the laws to stay the same while anti-gun people are pushing for law reforms and some even want the removal of the second amendment. The current laws surrounding guns, who’s allowed to own them, the process you go through to get one, and what types are allowed to be owned are good as they currently stand and should not be majorly changed, if changed at all. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “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.”([U.S. Constitution] Amendment 2) This tiny section has been under the most debate and scrutiny. Some people read it as saying individuals are allowed the right to own firearms, and that the State and Federal government should not be allowed to regulate firearms as it is deemed unconstitutional. The other side of this debate comes from a more collective idea stating that when written it was intended to protect a State’s right to a militia, not an …show more content…
Supreme Court decided to use the collective idea, which means that individuals are not granted the right to possess firearms, due to a case involving a sawed-off shotgun. They decided that since this type of weapon was not necessary for a “well-regulated militia” then it can be regulated by governments. This stood until 2008 when another case made the Supreme Court. The plaintiff challenged a law in D.C. that banned handguns. The Supreme Court went through the Second Amendment again, trying to put themselves into the mindset of the original writers, trying to decide their original intent. They decided that U.S. citizens had the right to possess firearms and nullified the D.C. handgun