Pros And Cons Of The Second Amendment

775 Words4 Pages
The Second Amendment of The Constitution says “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.” The second clause of the Second Amendment allows the citizens of the United States of America to have the right to possess a fire arm. The “Individual Right Theory” is what gives the people the right to have those fire arms and stops the legislative body to create any type of regulation to restrict the possession of fire arms because it will be considered unconstitutional. On the other hand, the first the clause of the Second Amendment says “A well Regulated Militia” this is where congress can’t take away the right of the State to self – defense which is known as the “Collective right theory”…show more content…
The Supreme Court would consistently continue to ban laws that fringe with the Second Amendment, such as in the District of Columbia v. Heller. Washington D.C. would place a ban on the possession of handguns, and illegal to register for one. Those who already owned a gun according to the law it was to be kept unloaded at all timed and be on safety, unless being used for a lawful purpose. Heller didn’t comply with the new law and filed a lawsuit against D.C. and on June 26 th of 2008, the decision of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does protect an individual’s right to own and use guns for lawful purposes, and those purposes included self – Defense. In conclusion, the people believe that if guns have regulations crime would decrease at a steady pace, but the fact is that people that use the guns correctly are the ones reducing crime around the nation. There is much more evidence that guns don’t need much regulation or banning because it has proven to be effective at stopping crime and arguments are proven on hypothetical scenarios and biases about dangers of
Open Document