Gun Control: Is There a Middle Ground?
May 16, 1985 was Jimmy Amerson’s sixteenth birthday and he had just received his driver’s license. Jimmy’s older brother, Eddie, gave Jimmy a car for his birthday. Jimmy excited about the car; could not wait to drive it. Earl, Jimmy’s step brother, wanted to drive the car also, but Jimmy would not let him. Earl became angry and went into the house, and grabbed his father’s gun, and fatally shot Jimmy in the head. May 16, 1985 was the best day of Jimmy’s young life; it was also the last day of Jimmy’s young life. The debate over gun control has been raging on since there have been guns in this country and the focus has been on who is right and who is wrong. Those for gun control say regulation is constitutional; those against gun control say it is unconstitutional; is there a middle ground?
Those who support gun control believe gun control is constitutional based on the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. They believe the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms does not extend to every individual but is for theNational Guard. The Second Amendment to the U. S. Constitution (1791) 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”. The well regulated militia is today’s National Guard and the right of the people referred to is the right of the National Guard to bear arms to protect the security of a free state.
“In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court discusses the purpose and the limit of the Second Amendment and tells us that the “obvious purpose” of the Amendment was “to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of our state militia forces” (Blek, 1999, para. 4). The right to bear arms is for the purpose of maintaining an effective state militia or our present day National Guard. When the Second Amendment was written, the states were concerned with protecting...