Pros And Cons Of The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment: Hindrance or Help to Gun Control

Amanda Mathew
10062963
POLS 110B-002
Professor Kim Richard Nossal
Steven Rendulic
18 March 2013
Word Count: 2408
In light of the recent tragedies in Aurora, Colorado and Newtown, Connecticut, which involved gun violence and resulted in deaths of many people, gun control has been on the forefront of political debates in the United States. Many of these debates call to the Second Amendment as either being a hindrance to the implementation of stricter laws or as reason to simply enforce the already existing laws, leading many to question whether the American government should rely on a two hundred year old document to influence modern day policies. The Second Amendment
In this case, the Second Amendment is justifiable as it pertains to the safety of the nation in “both foreign and domestic threats” (Oder 1998, 65), however it is ambiguous towards what the type of protection is considered a militia. For example, recently in the case of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman claimed that his gun was used in self defense, calling into question the “Stand Your Ground” law that exists in the state of Florida (ABC 2012). This law states that a man is not required to back down or retreat, justifying “Home protection; [and] use of deadly force [if] … fear of death or great bodily harm” (Florida Statutes 776). Similar laws are in existence nationwide, and are called into question each time a similar incident occurs. This particular case pertains directly to this argument, as Zimmerman was part of his neighbourhood-watch program, and was thus responsible for the safety of his neighbourhood (ABC 2012). It could be argued that Zimmerman, being directly accountable for those residing in his area and carrying a weapon to protect said area, was part of a modern day militia and thus, in this third definition of the Second Amendment, was justified in his actions. Zimmerman’s position and actions raise the question of what is truly to be considered a militia, and thus has created much debate about gun control: does a militia only pertain to that of law enforcement, such as the
Similar to that of the Second Amendment, argument is between those who are pro-guns versus anti-gun. Pro-gunners are advocating for, not more lenient laws but simply, that the government attempts to better enforce the laws that are already in existence. Comparatively those who are questioning the validity of the Second Amendment are appealing to the government to place stricter restrictions on the ownership and distribution of guns. Those who are pro-gun are supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA) in the United States, whose arguments, based in the right to “freedom” as according to the Second Amendment, are directly hindering the progress of gun control. The NRA claims that “there are currently more than 20,000 firearms laws in the U.S., clearly more than enough to punish criminals who misuse firearms, but the laws have to be enforced” (Braga 2001, 545). However many of these 20000 laws are restricted by others, thus making them unenforceable and furthermore, many of these laws were created with the intention to be difficult to enforce (Braga 2001, 546). The NRA has undermined many of the laws in place by the “sponsoring of legislation that undermines the ability of the ATF agents to build cases against unregulated private sellers involved in firearms trafficking” (Braga, 2001, 546). Those involved in the making of laws towards