Week 5 Assignment
PHI103: Informal Logic
29 November, 2012
Are there any legitimate restrictions on gun ownership?
The modern era is heavily dependent on the TV as their chief source of information or news about the rest of the world. Since the nations have simultaneous access to the violent new stories that are exaggerated and sensationalized to generate more and more ratings all over the international television channels, newspapers and even the internet, a lot of people have started thinking whether the U.S. Constitutions’ 2nd Amendment is restrictive enough or not. According to a case in the Supreme Court recently, there was an evaluation of the said Amendment and ...view middle of the document...
They were still trying to get their legs under them after the huge defeat from the occupation force of the British, when the colonial people discovered that they had a shortage of weapon, clothing and food. The Continental Congress was unsuccessful in garnering enough essentials from the other colonies through monetary donations to take care of the army. Most of the men possessed only those weapons which they had brought with themselves. Later, the American Army was successful because of this very reason that they were able to round up enough people who were armed and possessed the will and spirit to fight. In the start of the War of revolution, only some unit has adequate weapons. It was something which was not lost on the drafters of the Bill of the Rights.
At the time when the initial ten amendment of the Constitution were put down during 1791, they did not intend, the rights which were listed, to be granted, rather they only desired to bring them to light. According to the Thomas (2010, p.85), the Bill of Right does not given an individual the right to free exercise of religion or freedom of speech, instead it only serves as a reminder of the power of the government. Majority of the amendments were driven from the English law which was in effect during the time and agreed to be inalienable rights intrinsic to free people. A huge number of delegates were concerned because of the protection lack for liberty of the individual within the Constitution. Other people were afraid that particularly, if some rights were listed, it would mean any of those which were not listed would be dependent on the mood of the government. The wording of the Tenth Amendment resolved it later on.
The presence of an armada of armed people which was on constant standby for the defense of the nation was very appealing for the Continental Congress which was against the creation of a permanent, standing army. Since the all the citizens of the country were considered to be a part of the militia, it can be expected that the population would own weapons that can compare to the standard arms of an army. The Second Amendment states that militia, which is well regulated, is integral for a free States’ security and the peoples’ right to bear and keep Arm, shall not be infringed (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2012).
According to a normative perspective, there of course reasonable restriction for the bearing arms right; for the Continental Army, the ‘modernized’ weaponry was inclusive of muzzle loading, single shot rifles or pistols plus a wide variety of swords and other hand to hand combat instruments. In the current era, it would mean that citizens are allowed to have magazine-fed, shoulder fired, select0fire rifle like the M4 Carbine, semi-automatic, magazine fed pistols like M1911A1 or M9 Beretta as well as a few folding and combat knives which are a common part of the gear of an army soldier.
Even though the aforementioned ideal is not as restrictive as firearm laws...