Another heated Amendment debate This Amendment is very discussed because it is overseen by one of the largest lobbying groups. This group is the NRA (National Rifle Association). They have many faithful members and they will go to great lengths to make sure that what they feel are there given rights, have any chance to be seen as being forfeited. This whole group of people feels that the 2nd Amendment guarantees them the right to own and carry a gun. To enforce my later statements I feel I must add the 2nd amendment to this paper so I shall do so: "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." Eugene Volokh believes that this statement secures a "right of the people" not of the militia. I believe that we are able by our constitution to own guns. Under the 1956 Militia Act, it says anyone between 18 and 45 are part of the militia which is "the body of the people capable of bearing Arms" (Volokh). That to me constitutes that anyone capable of handling a gun has a right to possess one unless they have had a felony, mental illness, etc. Carl T. Bogus, a law professor at Roger Williams University in Bristol R.I., simply stated the whole reason for the second Amendment was because "James Madison merely wanted to win support for the Bill of Rights from southerners who wanted armed units to be able to control slaves" (Glaberson). This amendment I feel has become very heated just in these past years. We have run into problems with these mass killings and with the guns falling into the wrong
Bertagnolli 2 hands. People are being killed by an alarming number by guns but people fail to realize how much good a gun can do. We can easily see how much horror a weapon can do, when it is misused. Eugene Volpkh made a great point when he said that we do not easily see the hundred of thousands of people who use guns each year in self-defense, including separating spouses who defend themselves against would-be abusers. " Laws against possession will rarely deter people who are inclined to violate laws against violent crimes (Volpkh). He helps in making a good point because these statements are often overlooked when something terrible happens involving a gun. Gary Sackett addresses the question if the state and federal government can enact such gun-control legislation as they deem necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare." The answer is of course yes after all of the discussions we have had about this in class but what's hard is to define is that line which separates the two extremes of the above quote. You have to either know it's okay or know that it crosses that line and it endangers the safety and welfare of everyone around you. I have to lean to the side that this amendment gives the private citizen a right to have a gun. I think we should have a gun for whatever reason we think we need them for. Glaberson helps this theory of mine the best in his article. He cites the British Bill of Rights of 1689, which said "The subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law". This he said showed that the second amendment was meant to protect private citizens (Glaberson). So as a gun owner myself, I would feel torn if my guns were stripped from me because of another interpretation of the same Amendment. I think there has to start being some closure on these closely heated Amendment debates.