The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states,
"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"(Witkin). A
question that might be asked upon this would be, does it mean that all people
should have the ability to possess whatever arms they wish?
Since the age of the Civil War weapons that are being produced
have become more deadly. In the late 1700's there really were not any
deadly weapons such as handguns, but they did use muskets, which, were
not very deadly. The crime rate has been rising, which is causing some
issues for the people who use guns often, but do not use them in a
criminal way. Firearms have been a part of the American tradition as
protection and also they have been used for hunting. However, the use of guns
has changed significantly, and that is one of the reasons gun control
is becoming a very large issue.
People cannot decide whether or not
certain laws should be passed regarding guns or not (Kellermann).
Some people believe that it should be absolute, and any and all
arms should be legal. Some pro-gunners draw what seem to be obvious
limitations. For instance, the owning of a nuclear weapon or other
weapon of mass destruction should be illegal. Some of the people go as
far as even declaring that heavy military equipment such as tanks and
bazookas should be illegal. Then some people are to believe that
reasonable controls on items such as automatic machine guns are all
right. Therefore, from all of this you can see that there is obviously
much disagreement about the limitations of the Second Amendment. There
are moral and legal arguments on the issue...