Ammunition over Guns Essay

1708 Words 7 Pages
The Bill of Rights has stood for centuries as the ultimate embodiment of the rights of citizens in America, and the right to keep and bear arms is a vital part of the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Gun control, or even a ban, infringes upon this fundamental freedom of America’s constitutional law. Furthermore, the problems being targeted are not problems, and the technology being discredited, ludicrous. Finally, gun control proponents base their arguments on fearful statistics, whereas statistics, in reality, favor less restrictive arms bans.
Argument has always erupted over the exact interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. The amendment flew through Congress in 1791, and promptly ratified by the
…show more content…
The Supreme Court ruled in the Opinion of the Court that “arms” refer to firearms, and that restricting technologies developed since its adoption constitutes an unconstitutional action, and more so, the militia composition includes all able bodied citizens (the Supreme Court called it a “citizen militia,”) (SC 7-8, 23) . This militia is to be “well regulated” but the Court found this to simply mean “well trained,” not regulated by strict regulation (SC 23). In short, while this ruling found that the right to bear arms is an individual right, every able bodied man makes up the aforementioned collective. The Court continued to make an attempt at defining which guns were protected under the 2nd amendment, ruling specifically that handguns are legal under the amendment, along with rifles, shotguns, and most modern firearms (the Court struck down the notion that only antiquated arms are protected) (SC 8). Thus, the Supreme Court not only found gun rights to be an extensive right. While the right is extensive, as the Supreme Court has found, it is not all encompassing as Presser v Illinois has found. All members on both sides of the issue agree that the use of guns for violence constitutes a heinous act by those responsible; the Supreme Court has ruled that the right to arms does not apply if intended for semi-military or violent use in Presser v Illinois (“Presser v Illinois”). In short, the ability to own guns, and a wide
Open Document