The Second Amendment: The Right To Bear Arms
The second amendment, the right to bear arms, was adopted on December 15, 1791. In that day in age, guns were not as powerful as they have become, and many who created the Bill of Rights could not have predicted the future. If the constitution, or Bill of Rights, had been written with the knowledge of today’s weapons the Second Amendment would be different. Now in the 21st century there have been many cases where the Second Amendment has been brought into question. These cases have brought questions that deal with the amendment having been written for civilians, but also the worry of the advancements that have been made in weaponry since the time the Second Amendment was written. One case that has been a landmark in challenging the
…show more content…
The National Firearms Act only imposed an authority tax, but it has been assumed that Congress had an underlying purpose to prohibit transactions in these certain firearms. This can be seen through that statement made saying, “The Act was a response to gangster-era violence, which Prohibition fueled. The Act attempted to ban gangster weapons, most notably the Thompson submachine gun” (LEIDER 220). The Thompson submachine gun was created in 1918 by General John T. Thompson, but was eventually modified for nonmilitary use in 1919. Citizens possessed this gun, and “Auto Ordnance sold its submachine guns through every legal outlet it could. A Thompson submachine gun could be purchased either by mail order, or from the local hardware or sporting goods stores” (“Thompson Submachine Gun." 1 ). Referring back to The United States Supreme Court vs. Miller, the defendant, challenged the National Firearms Act of 1934, explaining that it was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. But the Supreme Court of the United States described that the Second Amendment stating, “The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character …show more content…
Nowadays there are academic research articles talking about “increasing firepower, with a slight increase in size and the use of the appropriated ammunition judiciously combining the traditional, consecrated method of sending the ballistic projectiles to the target using the energy of throwing powder from a cartridge-tube, with a new type of ammunition, the active projectiles, the reactive and self-propelled bullets, even for the weapons with small caliber” (Cozma 1567). The ideas for advancements in guns continue to increase, but this isn’t what the writers of the Constitution and Second Amendment had in mind when they thought of the future. Guns and firepower are becoming too advanced for some citizens to understand, but most people don’t want to stop creating new guns, because they feel as though this increases safety. A contradiction to this statement has been found. New, plastic, guns have recently been discovered, but there is no such thing as safety here. Although it’s fascinating that these plastic guns can be made by a 3D printer in less than twenty-four hours, "when these 3-D firearms are manufactured, some of the weapons can defeat normal detection such as metal detectors, wands, and it could present a problem to public safety in a venue such as an airport, an arena, a courthouse" (Johnson
The National Firearms Act only imposed an authority tax, but it has been assumed that Congress had an underlying purpose to prohibit transactions in these certain firearms. This can be seen through that statement made saying, “The Act was a response to gangster-era violence, which Prohibition fueled. The Act attempted to ban gangster weapons, most notably the Thompson submachine gun” (LEIDER 220). The Thompson submachine gun was created in 1918 by General John T. Thompson, but was eventually modified for nonmilitary use in 1919. Citizens possessed this gun, and “Auto Ordnance sold its submachine guns through every legal outlet it could. A Thompson submachine gun could be purchased either by mail order, or from the local hardware or sporting goods stores” (“Thompson Submachine Gun." 1 ). Referring back to The United States Supreme Court vs. Miller, the defendant, challenged the National Firearms Act of 1934, explaining that it was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. But the Supreme Court of the United States described that the Second Amendment stating, “The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character …show more content…
Nowadays there are academic research articles talking about “increasing firepower, with a slight increase in size and the use of the appropriated ammunition judiciously combining the traditional, consecrated method of sending the ballistic projectiles to the target using the energy of throwing powder from a cartridge-tube, with a new type of ammunition, the active projectiles, the reactive and self-propelled bullets, even for the weapons with small caliber” (Cozma 1567). The ideas for advancements in guns continue to increase, but this isn’t what the writers of the Constitution and Second Amendment had in mind when they thought of the future. Guns and firepower are becoming too advanced for some citizens to understand, but most people don’t want to stop creating new guns, because they feel as though this increases safety. A contradiction to this statement has been found. New, plastic, guns have recently been discovered, but there is no such thing as safety here. Although it’s fascinating that these plastic guns can be made by a 3D printer in less than twenty-four hours, "when these 3-D firearms are manufactured, some of the weapons can defeat normal detection such as metal detectors, wands, and it could present a problem to public safety in a venue such as an airport, an arena, a courthouse" (Johnson