There has been much debate in our society concerning the proposed laws of gun control violating the second Amendment, which 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”. Per the Heritage Guide to The Constitution, “Modern debates about the meaning of the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a right of individuals to keep and bear arms or, instead a right of the states to maintain militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was apparently never even discussed for a long time after the Bill of Rights was framed. When it was enacted, the Second Amendment applied only to the federal government, …show more content…
He points out that even the military understands that guns are dangerous and military weapons such as assault rifles are even more dangerous. These weapons are designed to do one thing-kill a large number of human beings quickly-as we witnessed in Orlando. Davis argues that the preamble to the Second Amendment, quoted in the introduction, was written with the idea those having arms would possess them and use them with a degree of military-like responsibility and when serving as militia. Because this is clearly not how circumstances have evolved, three “military-like” steps need to be …show more content…
Army still keeps its guns locked up tight, the military understood that guns were dangerous and as such, should be controlled. They also understood that combined with alcohol, drugs, heightened emotions, or misplaced loyalties, guns could be the central component of unfortunate-even fatal circumstances. Because of this recognition, in this society (Army), where I was privileged to live and work, we controlled guns. Anyone who touched one had to be trained and, in effect, licensed. Guns had to be registered with a federal authority. Ammunition was tightly controlled and without exception fully accounted