Cooke argues that the Second Amendment is not the one to blame for this outbreak of violence. He first brings up one of the most recent shootings, where a white supremacist shot and killed nine African American church goers in Charlestown, South Carolina. He proceeds to say that people’s first reaction was obviously going to be more emotional, the people were going to grieve, which is typical and understood. He then states, “But as the dust settled and the news sank in, many turned to more practical considerations. Predictably, the fractious question of America’s unique firearms laws was pushed to the fore.” (Cooke). Once the grief was pushed aside, America woke up and decided to contemplate the country’s current laws on gun control. He expresses his own opinions towards the topics. He broke them down into three major points: moral, legal and philosophical reasoning on why people should have the right to bear arms. Following these reasoning’s, he gives his strongest point of the article; he states,” …I think that to blame the Second Amendment itself — and, for that matter, to propose its repeal — is not only to rather miss the point, but to expose the root flaw in the way that the skeptics view the whole question of firearms in the United States,” (Cooke). He begins his first paragraph off by discussing how other countries have some type of my stringent gun regulations, for example, Britain, France and Australia. Continuing on, he proceeds to compare America’s specific laws to other specific areas of the world; here in America, in certain states, individuals are allowed to carry weapons physically on them or can purchase assault rifles (AR-15’s) without a problem. However, we enforce the laws more than those specific areas, so if we were to change laws here, we would not really see a change at all. He argues, “Were the Supreme Court to pretend