Gun Control Is Constitutional Or Unconstitutional

892 Words4 Pages
Although both Blek and Sobran address very different viewpoints when it comes to if gun control is Constitutional or Unconstitutional, Blek tends to focus on why there should be restrictions and gun laws in place while Sobran emphasis that the right to bear arms should not be invaded or limited. Both men highlight some specific topics that are actually similar in nature yet, each with their own twist, allowing a person to fully grasp both sides and depict both the positive and negative affect if gun laws where in fact implemented. On the topic of individual ownership, they generally have an opposing view. Blek’s issue is not with possessing a gun. His issue instead lies with not having responsible gun laws in place for those who do own them. Blek argues that by having gun laws in place, for those who want to own one, it will ultimately minimize gun violence. He also believes that by restricting the number of rounds in a magazine you can limit the damage done because it is the gun’s fault for gun related tragedies. On the other hand, Sobran believes every individual should have the right to own a gun based off of the Constitution of the United States. He claims that since the Constitution clearly does not limit ownership rights, then it is legal. One of Sobran’s main points to support this is that the Constitution does not specifically grant the government the ability to limit the right to bear arms, if so then any restrictions placed are deemed unconstitutional. Blek and

More about Gun Control Is Constitutional Or Unconstitutional

Get Access