Kellie Murphy ENG 1010 Marcia Smith 20APR2014 Amendment II The Constitution of the United States was written

by our Founding Fathers to insure that the freedoms of American citizens and states will not be infringed upon by the Federal Government. The Second Amendment to the Constitution has recently been in the media a lot because of some recent tragedies that involved firearms. There are many arguments on what the Second Amendment really means and whether or not it still applies today. The most important thing is to understand exactly what the second amendment states, which is; 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". In this essay I will share three different points of view and their arguments. Those views are: The Second Amendment should be able to protect modern weapons as others Amendments do, the people and the Government should try to prevent future gun violence, and then my opinion which is that we have the right to bear arms. The reason I chose this subject is because I have been interested in buying a rifle and a handgun once I turned 21. The Supreme Court case, District of Columbia vs Heller (2008), ruled that the Second Amendment applies to federal enclaves and protects the individuals rights to possess a firearm for lawful purchases such as self-defense. The Supreme Court had mostly remained silent about gun control. This case was the first since 1939 in regards

to the Second Amendment. For a long time after the 1939 Supreme Court case, United States vs Miller, it was widely accepted that the Second Amendment applied to organized militia like groups, such as the National Guard. But with the recent court case it is now widely accepted that the Second Amendment supports peoples rights to own a gun in their home for self-defense purposes; although there are many people who are still opposed. Many law professors argue that many other freedoms in the Bill of Rights have been treated as an individuals right, and then the Second Amendment should be no different (Emma Schwartz). A very interesting example of this point of view that I found was that of Darrell A.H. Miller. He published the scholarly review, Guns as Smut: Defending the Homebound Second Amendment, in the Columbia Law Review. Miller referred to the Heller case in his review to support his claim. He stated that according to the First Amendment, citizens have the right to have adult obscenities in their houses for their own personal reasons. He says that under that ruling it would make sense to treat firearms as we do adult obscenities (Miller 1280). That would mean we should be able to have firearms in our houses for self-defense purposes. Millers argument is that if things such as pornography can be protected under the First Amendment then handguns should be covered in the Second Amendment. What I understand is that even though the Founding Fathers would have never known that pornography and modern firearms would ever exist, is that they should still be protected the same. Whats very interesting about this view is that it doesnt touch on assault weapons, only handguns (Miller). The next view I would like to share is that people believe there is a need for some kind of gun control. According to a Gallup Poll taken on October 3-6, 2013, 25%

of those who took the poll felt there should be a law banning handguns with the exception of police and authorized personnel. President Obama is a major advocate for gun control. Obama appointed Vice President Biden to work on gun laws to try and prevent future gun violence, and in the last year has been taking steps to enact them. Some of his proposed laws to pass are; pass new and stronger ban on assault weapons, ensure better mental health care especially for young people, and make schools safer with resource officers, better emergency response plans and more nurturing school climates. The White House acknowledges that it is not law-abiding and responsible gun owners that are committing gun violence, and that they are using their guns safely. The White House feels that it is time to enact these gun laws because of the recent gun violence in Aurora and Sandy Hook. In Aurora Colorado, a man entered a movie theater and killed 12 people and wounded 58 more with a firearm. At Sandy Hook Elementary, a man entered the school and shot and killed 20 children and 6 staff members who were trying to protect them. After the Sandy Hook shooting President Obama spoke about the shooting. He said: If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that -- then surely we have an obligation to try. President Obama is one of the strongest advocates for gun control, as well as Vice President Joe Biden (Now is the Time). My opinion on the Second Amendment is that there is a need for some regulation, such as background checks. Although it would be easy to take gun regulation too far and violate some peoples rights. I understand that the Founding

Fathers did not know what firearms would evolve into, but I agree that if the First Amendment can apply to 21st Century things that so should the Second Amendment. It is not right to pick and choose what can apply today and what cant. I do strongly believe that felons and the severely mentally ill should not be able to purchase firearms; because they are a public safety risk. I hadnt ever really though t about whether or not the mentally ill should be able to own a firearm, but I came across an article titled When the Right to Bear Arms Includes the Mentally Ill by Michael Lue and Mike McIntire. The issue that the authors put forth is that law enforcement does not have the rights to permanently detain a firearm from someone who have shown that they can be mentally unstable. The authors share multiple instances where people have documentation that they are mentally unstable and have at one point had their firearms taken from them by law enforcement but once they sought to have them returned, they were. I struggle with whether returning those firearms is right or wrong; because it is impossible to say whether or not those people are going to commit gun violence. This is an example of how difficult this subject really is. I also believe that making bans on guns is not the answer. Also I believe that some of President Obamas regulations are not the answer. It is not the legal, sane gun owners who are going out and open firing at innocent people. It is mentally ill and people who illegally have guns that do. If there were a ban on guns then people would not be able to defend themselves from those who illegally have guns. I still fail to see how people think guns can be different from heroin or cocaine, and criminals wont obtain them. I have learned a lot and strengthened my views on this issue through researching this subject.

In conclusion there are many different views in regard to the Second Amendment. Theres the view that the Second Amendment should be treated the same as the First. This view has many factual backings that make it easy to understand that point of view. There is also the view where people believe gun control is the answer and hope to enact laws to try to prevent further gun violence. There have been many tragedies cause by guns, but people still question whether or not gun control will really end gun violence. I still believe that we have the right to own a gun as long as we are law-abiding United States citizens and are mentally sane. It is difficult to say who is right or wrong on what we should do about gun laws and the Second Amendment. It stands to this day that it is an individual right to own a firearm.