The definition of the second amendment has been an ongoing debate over the past few years. Most people are debating this issue because they want to know whether the states have actual power to interpret the Second Amendment. Many people have interpreted the second amendment coming about with new and innovative interpretations. We give people the power to see the second amendment.

Nonetheless, it is vital to understand the situation about what the Framers were in. The argument on the Second Amendment had two sides the conservative side, which people feel was only for purposes of consolidation. This joint side favors more stringent laws on gun control. With stricter regulations, they have fewer crimes. Having more stringent gun rules can reduce crime, but it restricts people who want the law to own a firearm, not allowing them to use one, making the opposing side. The opposite side claims that without any limitation, people should have access to guns. This joint side prefers more stringent gun control laws. They are having fewer malefactions with more stringent regulations. Having more stringent rules towards guns may truncate malefactions, but it restricts the people who want to own a firearm by the law, not sanctioning them from utilizing one, which makes the opposing side. This antithesis side argues that denizens should have al access to guns without any restriction. One group that is a component of the collective team is the National Rifle Sodality (NRA). The National Rifle Association argues about having more stringent gun laws for abiding denizens. The debate over the Second Amendment is how the interpretation is in the first place. The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights 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’. It is giving the right for people to bear arms.

To plenarily understand the debate over the two sides is to go back when gun control acts commenced. One of the very first gun control laws commenced in 1911, the Sullivan Act. This act states, ‘…permits to carry firearms issued at the discretion of local law enforcement’. It sanctioned civilians to carry a gun that was concealed by the person registered to the state. This bill was testing how gun control was going to be transpiring in the future. The group was favoring less gun control for the second amendment thoroughly capitalized on this in 1911. However, the Sullivan Act established 20 years later; the conservative group commenced to take action at the federal level. In 1934 the National Firearms Act was done. The National Firearms Act of 1934 stated, ‘…requires the registration, with the federal government, of fully-automatic firearms’. If a citizen broke the law from the National Firearms Act, civilians would get tax 200 dollars for breaking this law.

Around this time, Homer Cummings was an anti-second amendment. Homers developed an orchestration in order to register for every gun and every person that owns a gun. Nevertheless, World War II commenced to scare people, realizing they were giving a right to be bulwarked. Voicing his opining about how the second amendment was going to become an issue it open the doors to discussion about the second amendment.

Gun control was brought up again around the 1960’s but more vigorous than before. People were making campaigns utilizing the deaths of Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, and JFK. These assassinations transpired between the years 1963 and 1968. Since a gun caused these assassinations, this made an excellent opportunity for people to commence going after the Second Amendment, giving it a political perspective in modern liberalism. Around this same time, the Vietnam War was transpiring, which gave citizens more reason to misprize guns and violence around the war.

Creating stricter gun laws, people do not consider how it affects our whole country as a whole.

Katie Pavlich researched how the ammunition industry and the U.S. commercial guns create a total of ‘$32 billion in the economic’. What would happen to the firearms industry? It would not only impact the U.S. economy incredibly. Nevertheless, instead of stopping crimes related to guns, the black market is going to increase sales instead.

Another example of how the opposing team opposing stricter laws is the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, this case brought up by Dick Anthony Heller, made an application in order to keep a handgun at his own home. However, soon after, he got a letter notifying him that the application he turned in denied him from obtaining a gun. Heller argued, ‘…they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license’. When Heller argued this, he went back to the Second Amendment, letting the court know it was his right to bear arms. The District of Columbia v. Heller was a big case because the district court denied his request. Nevertheless, the U.S. Court of Appeals went over this case again, giving Heller his right back.

However, just like this case, school shootings have a big part in how citizens view the Second Amendment. A shooting fatally attacked Saugus High School. Elizabeth Wolf covers this story finding out, ’16-year-old shooter killing two students and three injured and shot himself’. This shooting was one of many that happened across the whole country in 2019. Knowing that a minor, not even an adult, is getting a weapon makes citizens fearful. Many school shootings are performed by minors, which makes citizens think of how weapons are everywhere.

However, as the opposing side argues that with stricter laws violates their Second Amendment, other cases have risen as well. McDonald v. City of Chicago was a case brought up in 2010. Otis McDonald brought this case when the strict laws of Chicago prohibited him from owning a gun. McDonald stated, ‘…generally banned the new registration of handguns and made registration a prerequisite of possession of a firearm” McDonald. McDonald argued that having this handgun ban violated his Second Amendment. The court decision was 5-4, favoring McDonald about his right as a citizen.

Beretta USA Corp. is a prime example of how corporations are being affected. Maryland passed the Firearm Safety Act. This act stated, ‘…limiting the authorization for a person to wear, carry, or transport a handgun”. Which limited semi rifles, including how much ammunition a citizen can carry. Beretta soon after decided to build another factory in Tenessee. However, once Beretta saw how limited it made their company, Beretta decided to move to Tennessee permanently. Maryland’s new gun act cased over 300 jobs in the Beretta Company. Beretta made a statement on how this law limited the growth of their company. Beretta was one of many companies that moved to friendly gun state or closed permanently.

Nevertheless, as many incidents are involved with a type of gun, new legislations are being proposed. Sandy Hook elementary school is an example of another school shooting. This shooting took place on December 14, 2012, by Adam Lanza. According to Michael Ray, this shooting was, ‘…fatally shot 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School before taking his own life’. Adam Lanza was a 20-year-old man that went on a rampage. The police were unclear what his motive was. There was much death in this shooting. Making the president at the time aware of how this is a problem in our country. Soon after, Barrack Obama creating a universal background check and limiting ammunition. However, as each state creates its laws against guns, other states will not. Some citizens argue that the problem aren’t the guns but the control people have with guns.

Although our Second Amendment involves the U.S., only other countries have similar problems with this issue as well. Erick Puryear researched the statistics on how the crime rate of guns in the U.K. has risen. Puryear found, ‘violent crime about guns showed 100,000 people at 2,034 has doubled over the years’. Puryear showed how gun control laws established has caused more injuries or killing with guns.

Another country that has stringent laws against guns in Russia having one of the highest crime rates. However, with more and more stricter gun laws, it seems that people want more guns when citizens’ rights are being denied. As the U.K. and Russia have stricter gun laws than we do, these countries have a higher crime rate with guns than the U.S. does.

The side that I am supporting more is being with the group with stricter gun laws. We need to control who is allowed to obtain a gun on their past law infractions. Such as rape, murder, and assault on someone they should not have guns. Although this gives us a base of who does not obtain a gun, we have to take into consideration the psychological perspective. However, since psychological breaks might be unpredictable on ‘normal people.’ Extensive databases for people about guns can make sure shootings, murders, any gun violence never happen again.

Such as any gun violence that happens in the U.S. accidentals deaths of guns happen as well. According to the Law Center for Gun Violence state, ‘…nine times the amount of unintentional firearms-related deaths and 89% of unintentional deaths of children’. Many deaths across the country are affecting children giving us an insight on how careless we are with guns. The second amendment was in place to protect you at your home, not to get your own family injured in the process. Many people see a gun as a form of protection. Nevertheless, not knowing what the safety procedures are when having a gun.

In conclusion, the United States has given us a place to call home without being worried that the government can take it away. Our founding fathers put these amendments in place to give us freedom from our government and protection — especially the Second Amendment. Many gun control laws proposed about the issue of our right to keep and bear arms as the National Firearms Act of 1934 imposed taxation on automatic weapons and short-barreled rifles. Many disagree and agree with this, but out of many other issues this country has, the Second Amendment is just one of them as well. Interpreting the second amendment falls on the person who is reading it. Many citizens have interpreted this text in many ways. However, to know what our founding fathers were thinking about the second amendment, we may never know.