The Second Amendment has created a lot of heated debates on peoples right to bear arms.
There are two main sides to this debate.
On one side, you have a large group of people concerned with gun violence and advocating for much stricter control over firearms in this country. These folks tend to argue that the Second Amendment does little more than guarantee the right of states to maintain militias. They claim the Second Amendment has virtually no contemporary significance.
On the other side, you have another huge group of people convinced that the Second Amendment does protect an individual's right to "keep and bear arms." They believe in a natural and historically protected right to self-defense. The Second Amendment, these folks argue, is the cornerstone of individual liberty and security in America.
So much certainty and conviction—on both sides. They both can't be right, can they?
What do you think?
Shmoop Editorial Team. "Right to Bear Arms" Shmoop.com. Shmoop University, Inc., 11 Nov. 2008. Web. 28 Nov. 2012.
Interesting topic and worthy of discussion.
ReplyDeleteCheck this link ... http://www.shmoop.com/right-to-bear-arms/
Then come up with your own thoughts.
I should not be able to google a sentence of yours without quotes and find it on a another site.
Nice post! I think that we shouldn't ban guns in our country, but I also don't think that it should be easy to get them. This way hopefully only people who can be trusted with firearms will be able to obtain them.
ReplyDeleteI like the title.
ReplyDeleteNice layout and info. Austin! I like how you showed both sides of the argument and supported them.
ReplyDeleteGreat topic I like how you have provided both sides of the argument and the information provided is laid out very nicely.
ReplyDeleteThe Background is a little irrelevant to the topic, BOOKS??
ReplyDelete