"We The People of the United States, in order to from a more perfect union, cannot agree about the second amendment. In the last ten years the issue’s high profile political confrontations have left us with a polarized, unresolved dispute. This single, aged sentence from the Bill of Rights has birthed enormous institutions like Handgun Control Incorporated and the NRA oppositely, who lead the charge in furthering the social agenda surrounding the debate. The question of guns in private hands is an emotional, and ethical dilemma beyond any simple explanation. Perhaps the resolution lies in continued public discourse and social activism.
“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.” A pro gun rights activist would argue this literally means, so that people can be called upon to fight for their countries security, their right to keep arms is absolute. Also notable is the question of the right to self-defense, arguably made possible by the 9th amendment, or the enumerated rights. What’s more is how critical self-defense is made by the states inability to guarantee an individual’s absolute security. In responsible, lawful, educated hands, arms protect our country, our individual freedom, and our lives. Guns are for everyone.
The opposite view would be that institutions such as the National Guard, Reserves, and various State guards represent citizens comprising militias and should be the only citizens in possession of firearms. Firearms possessed by any other organizations or individuals are therefore not be protected by the Second Amendment. Firearms gravitate toward the hands of the unlawful, and their presence in society outside of controlled government supervision worsens violent crime, causes unnecessary risk to the common good. Guns are not for everyone."
