The 2nd amendment states very clearly “A well regulated …show more content…
The anti-pro gun control argument is. That gun control infringes on the rights of the people. They believe that the Second Amendment clearly 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’. However, it says technically ‘...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms...’. This constitutionally guarantees the rights of the people to own firearms and to use them to defend themselves. The Pro-gun side believes they manipulate the definition to allow them to own absurd amounts of firearms. They also argue that the anti pro-gun control people push the boundaries of the word of law to its very bounds. Having guns that only on paper are legal by a thread. They are right however as long as if it is, even by a thread still within the confines of the law and therefore …show more content…
It doesn’t outweigh the benefits for tightening the confines of gun control, and or re-wording the definition of the citizens right to bear arms. There is not a single reason for someone to own so many guns, 1-2 is plenty for defending one’s home and self defense. They must also make it written in the 2nd amendment, that if one is to own firearms and store them in their home or residence, they must proper hide or lock up their firearms from their children if they have them. As to decrease the possibility for a teen or child to gain access to their weapons and possibly harm other students or