There is, perhaps, no other sentence in American government or politics that stirs up as much debate as the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. NPR wrote a great article about this. Read the article and respond with your own interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. What do you think it means? How should gun ownership be regulated, if at all? Do you guns only belong in the hands of a militia, or is that concept outdated, and thus, moot?
Lastly, is senseless violence something the U.S. Government can combat with tighter gun regulations, or is the problem much bigger than that?
I think that when the founding fathers wrote this amendment, they lived in a time when families needed to protect themselves because the country was not nearly as well-established or protected as it is now. Gun ownership should be regulated the same way as a driver's license. There should be training to use it, a written test, performance test, health requirements, liability insurance on each gun, renewals of the license and inspections of the gun, and a title and tag at each point of sale. Cars are intended to get someone from point A to point B, not to hurt anyone/anything or provide protection from anyone/anything, but their potential to cause accidents is recognized and addressed with all those requirements. Because guns have even greater potential to hurt or kill others, gun ownership should also require a background check to ensure that the person purchasing the gun isn't a felon and that they aren't insane. I understand that people feel comforted by owning a gun for self-defense, so that should still be allowed. But people shouldn't be able to just pick up guns at gun shows without any kind of regulation. That way, no one is really prevented from owning a gun as long as that ownership wouldn't pose a threat to those around them. I think it's more important that everyone else's pursuit of life goes un-infringed, than it is for everyone to be able to buy a gun.
ReplyDelete