The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."(www.law.cornell.edu). This document was written in 1775 and ratified in 1787, and from that day the amendment still stands. So, in a constructivist point of view is there still a need for a well regulated militia in the United States or is the second amendment outdated and should be trimmed with the new fabric of America? My personal opinion on the matter is with the new age of America becoming more hostile every day, there will be always a need for a milita. A constructionist is someone, in this case, that interprets Gun control as a way to fulfill jobs and build up the process and relinquish gun laws in America. A non constructionist would want the gun laws to be much stricter. A constructivist would say “Like most rights, the rights conferred by the Second Amendment are not unlimited.” From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.(truthaboutguns.com) A non constructivist might say “Violence is not a …show more content…
So which do you decide are more deadly? You could argue with the increase of gang violence in the us has lead to describe the laws on guns. The strongest gang The Black P. Stone Nation aka BPSN is a Chicago-based street gang estimated to have more than 30,000 members. The gang was originally formed in the late 1950s as the Blackstone Rangers. In later years, an Islamic faction of the gang emerged, naming themselves the "El Rukn tribe of the Moorish Science Temple of America". The group's founder is Jeff