Week 5 Assignment
PHI103: Informal Logic
29 November, 2012

Are there any legitimate restrictions on gun ownership?

Introduction
The modern era is heavily dependent on the TV as their chief source of information or news about the rest of the world. Since the nations have simultaneous access to the violent new stories that are exaggerated and sensationalized to generate more and more ratings all over the international television channels, newspapers and even the internet, a lot of people have started thinking whether the U.S. Constitutions’ 2nd Amendment is restrictive enough or not. According to a case in the Supreme Court recently, there was an evaluation of the said Amendment and its context. A question needed answering which were whether there were any legitimate restrictions on gun ownership. According to the ruling of the Supreme Court, other Constitutional Amendments and the dangerous times, there are not many legitimate restrictions in the ownership of firearms.

Thesis Statement
“There are not a lot of legitimate restrictions in ownership of firearms.”

Discussion
In the Court case of Heller versus District of Columbia (D.C), there are arguments which cover almost all possible aspects of the 2nd Amendment. From the year 1975, Columbian District has put a ban within the residents of D.C’s homes, on the unlocked firearms’ possession. The residents were required by law to store any and all firearms which were permissible in the Columbian District disassembled and unloaded or at least to be fitted with a trigger lock. It might be a problem for the people who are unfamiliar with firearms to figure out how this act would discourage the denizens of D.C from using the weapons as a defense. The fact of the matter is that the time taken for the assembly, loading and unlocking of the firearm renders the use of the weapon in defense, un-necessary.
The