According to French, “the Second Amendment protects an individual right to ‘keep and bear arms’”. The article states that Progressives say there is nothing in place to stop the federal government from prohibiting the private ownership of firearms and allowing access weapons only to those who belong to the National Guard of any other military organization. The article explains why the next Supreme Court must uphold Heller and continue to recognize the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. According to French’s article, “The Second Amendment 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’”. This means that Heller can not be denied because of the right of the Second …show more content…
The article states ¨someone who used a gun to resist were less likely to get attacked¨. People feel more safe when they have a gun even though they do not use it in public. ¨It is impossible for the government to protect every single family and person¨,stated in the article; therefore, we should have guns for self-defense. For example, there was a Columbine High School shooting and a Virginia Tech shooting that lives could have been saved if there was an armed individual shooting the attackers. The article states, ¨Because criminals carry firearms, citizens should have the same right and advantage during protecting themselves from armed attackers. This goes even when the criminal has illegal or legal firearms¨. The article listed a lot of pros on owning guns. However, there are cons for having guns as well. The article states,¨According to a study by Charles Branas(PhD), he found that people ´carrying a gun for self-defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault than an assault victim without a gun´(American Journal of Public Health)¨. Many people argue that Adults with guns are often not trained well. There are some states that do not even require a lot of training before being able to have a