Are we to interpret the 2nd Amendment in the context of the actual text and historical setting in which was written OR in terms of the reality of guns in America today?
The facts on what's written on the books compare to what's is happening these days in America is different because of the change of time. Literally, old American people had the rights to use firing arms were affected by the wars, in which, one of the example, people mostly use guns on the battle and got back to home have their weapons as part of their memories. They have no license of using guns because they were soldiers, they kept their weapons in a safe place without using them. Therefore, they are not using their weapons or no one have had seen it, this is why they think register or license is unnecessary. Continuing, old people could have affected to their children conservatively by what they thought was right for them, and the idea of that keeps go on. Today, American politicians think of bearing arms and using them is extremely important that needed to register and license, from that the government can control the gun use. After all the tragic events that happened in 2012-2013, gun control is a very big topic to talk about. Many solutions came out differently because abundant comments and questions from people were giving out harshly. Politicians think it is a time to restrict strongly on gun use. The main point of the discussion is, the rights of using guns in the past and now is different. We might have to have firing arms as our protection, this is right as written in the past and the today. But using it as a cause of tragic, then it can't be accept. Overall, having guns as protection is slightly different from the past because some people can't control it and use them for their bad plan.
Based upon your answer above, if you had the FINAL say on gun rights/gun control debate in America today, how would you rule?
I would strongly restrict the gun use for the safe of people. If people want to use guns, then what they would do is to register and need a license for it. No exceptions are accepted. Airsoft guns and paint guns also need to register, preventing from harmful situation. Some people might think they don't have the rights of using guns, what about the military and police that would use their weapons no matter for good thing or bad. One of the example people would point out is, what if there's a protest's going on the road. Would the police have shields and fences, also guns pointing at protesters, we may predict what would occur. In this case, military and police would be limited the gun use also, they are allowed to use the tasers to control the gangs in any situation. Guns only used for military to defend the country. Finally, my ideal of using guns is extremely restricted.
I would strongly restrict the gun use for the safe of people. If people want to use guns, then what they would do is to register and need a license for it. No exceptions are accepted. Airsoft guns and paint guns also need to register, preventing from harmful situation. Some people might think they don't have the rights of using guns, what about the military and police that would use their weapons no matter for good thing or bad. One of the example people would point out is, what if there's a protest's going on the road. Would the police have shields and fences, also guns pointing at protesters, we may predict what would occur. In this case, military and police would be limited the gun use also, they are allowed to use the tasers to control the gangs in any situation. Guns only used for military to defend the country. Finally, my ideal of using guns is extremely restricted.
No comments:
Post a Comment