9
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 28:
Line 28: + + + + + + + + + +
no edit summary
After decades of increasing gun control, the current trend is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain rifles labeled "assault" rifles solely because of features of their appearance (and lethal fire power). This law recenly expired and was not renewed by Congress. Also, Washington's gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070309-102401-2730r.htm</ref>
After decades of increasing gun control, the current trend is in the direction of more gun rights. The 1994 Omnibus Crime Bill included a ban on certain rifles labeled "assault" rifles solely because of features of their appearance (and lethal fire power). This law recenly expired and was not renewed by Congress. Also, Washington's gun ban was struck down as unconstitutional by the U.S. Court of Appeals on March 9, 2007.<ref>http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20070309-102401-2730r.htm</ref>
=== Constitutional Debate ===
The [[Second Amendment]] 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."
The key phrase in the gun control debate is the "right of the People to keep and bear arms." Some debate arises, as the amendment itself seems to be about keeping a militia. In fact, the phrase "to bear arms" was, at the time of the pinning of the [[Bill of Rights]], synonomous with our current-day phrase of "serving in the military."
That is, a man could carry a rifle everywhere he goes for twenty years, never serve in the military, and the framers of the [[Constitution]] would say that he had yet to "bear arms" in his life.
The argument for gun control, ignoring the implied safety of a disarmed population and pointing at other nations where personal gun ownership is forbidden, stems from this interpretation and the fact that the United States currently has a standing military. The question is asked then, why would a "well regulated militia" be necessary?
<references/>
<references/>