One of the strongest arguments those that are against gun control have is the 2nd Amendment, which 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.” Though it seems that it is specifically stated that an individual’s right to own guns is protected by this amendment, those for gun control interpret this from a different angle. They believe that the Constitutional Amendment was aimed at militias, not the common people, and therefore individuals do not have undeniable rights to gun ownership. Those that believe that gun control would be a crime are firm believers that the Founding Fathers understood the need for citizens to own guns to protect themselves against government intrusion. Lawrence Hunter, Chairman of Revolution PAC, stated, “The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections …show more content…
They believe that it was targeted at militias and the military only, and does not encompass the common people and individuals. Their argument comes from the phrase “well regulated militia”, proving their claim that the Amendment does not protect or support an individual’s right to own guns. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia even said in the 2008 case U.S. v. Heller? That, “Like most rights, the 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited.” They also argue that the times have changed, and that the Founding Fathers never could have predicted that weapons such as machine guns would be created. The guns of their time were inaccurate and slow to load, while the guns of our times are capable of firing off (figure out how many bullets in how many