Daniel Schultz article “The “Well Regulated” Militia of the Second Amendment: An Examination of the Framers’ Intentions” provides readers with information questioning the meaning of “well regulated” and “militia.” The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution gives the right for all citizens to bear arms under a well regulated militia, but the true meaning of “well regulated” and “militia” are the cause of the controversial issue among leaders of the United States. Daniel discusses multiple issues that arise from this: the constitution does not state who has the authority to regulate this militia and does not state which militia is being regulated. Throughout the United States Constitution, the term regulated is used multiple times,
…show more content…
3). The idea that the government should further regulate gun control to the extent of the average citizen being forbidden to use a gun is unreasonable. The ratio of the number of good, law-abiding citizens to the number of crime-bound citizens favors that of the good citizens by an extremely large margin. How is it fair for the government to punish all citizens for the action of a minority of criminals? It is not one of the “life isn’t fair” moments, but in this situation not only does it punish the law-abiding citizens, but it also helps the citizens who are trying to obey the laws and protect their communities. If guns are banned and the law-abiding citizens are obeying the law, then when the criminals attempt to commit a crime, it is going to be much easier for them to get away with it because the average citizen is not going to have any way to protect his or herself. According to NRA’s mantra, “[the] only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (Hughes). So, not only does banning guns make it easier for a criminal to commit a crime, but it also disseminates any chance of stopping the criminal from committing the …show more content…
The only thing that banning guns would do is cause the criminal to have to look harder to find a gun, which in turn will make him or her even more frustrated. So, it is not the regulation of guns that needs to be changed. “There is only one way to stop killers from killing: Put them where they can’t get access to a gun, knife, explosives, car or any other lethal weapon”
3). The idea that the government should further regulate gun control to the extent of the average citizen being forbidden to use a gun is unreasonable. The ratio of the number of good, law-abiding citizens to the number of crime-bound citizens favors that of the good citizens by an extremely large margin. How is it fair for the government to punish all citizens for the action of a minority of criminals? It is not one of the “life isn’t fair” moments, but in this situation not only does it punish the law-abiding citizens, but it also helps the citizens who are trying to obey the laws and protect their communities. If guns are banned and the law-abiding citizens are obeying the law, then when the criminals attempt to commit a crime, it is going to be much easier for them to get away with it because the average citizen is not going to have any way to protect his or herself. According to NRA’s mantra, “[the] only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” (Hughes). So, not only does banning guns make it easier for a criminal to commit a crime, but it also disseminates any chance of stopping the criminal from committing the …show more content…
The only thing that banning guns would do is cause the criminal to have to look harder to find a gun, which in turn will make him or her even more frustrated. So, it is not the regulation of guns that needs to be changed. “There is only one way to stop killers from killing: Put them where they can’t get access to a gun, knife, explosives, car or any other lethal weapon”