Let's Analyze the Situation...

The controversy concerning the Second Amendment has been a continuous debate for many years. Although the Second Amendment gives individuals, "a right to bear arms," the interpretation of these words is where the debate lies. Many people interpret this amendment to mean that individuals have a right to own guns, as a mean for sporting use and self defense, and that the state and local governments should not have the ability to take away this right.


Others, however, feel that the Second Amendment is giving those in the military the right to possess guns and that personal gun ownership should be extremely limited. The debate also lies within each level of government and whose ability it is to enforce and interpret this law. Some feel that this is a law that should be interpreted by the national government, while others feel that this is a law that the state and local governments should have the ability to interpret and enforce. This has become such a controversial issue because as crime and violence rates continue to rise, it seems like the obvious answer would be to limit the use of firearms. However, should we be limiting the use of guns to those who use them correctly? Is it really fair to take away an individuals right when they have done nothing but obey the law?


In my opinion, I do not think this is fair. Through my interpretation of the Second Amendment and cases concerning the Second Amendment, I have come to the conclusion that this amendment was written so that each individual's freedom to own and properly use a gun would not be taken away. However, I am not saying that there should not be any laws regarding the use of guns. I personally feel that gun registration is important so that our government can keep track of specific weapons and so that our government can keep guns out of the hands of young children and teenagers. This has proved to be an important issue in the 2008 election due to the downward spiral of America's economy. With the economy being in such bad shape, the crime rate and theft rate have skyrocketed. In my hometown there has been more robberies and break-ins than ever before. People are losing their jobs and loosing money and they are becoming desperate for ways to stay financially stable. With an unstable economy that is pushing people to find money desperately, it is important for individuals to have personal guns as a means for self defense. If someone breaks into a home, how will the family protect themselves without having some type of weapon to use? Gun control is an extremely important issue that can have great effects so it is extremely important for each individual to form their own opinions regarding this issue and truly find out for themselves which candidate supports their opinions concerning the matter.


It is very clear the position John McCain and Sarah Palin have taken on the Gun Control Issue. Sarah Palin believes in our Second Amendment right to bear arms. She thoroughly explains her views to Charlie Gibson on ABC. She is a life-time member of the NRA and feels strongly about our Second Amendment right to own guns. She talks about how it is apart of the culture in Alaska who rely on guns for self protection, sporting use, and for hunting use. Palin argues that those who misuse guns are not going to stop misusing guns if the government starts to put even more and more laws on gun use and ownership. In her opinion, it is not fair to take guns out of the hands of people who use them correctly.



John McCain agrees with the ruling of the District of Columbia vs. Heller Case regarding the Second Amendment. Therefore, it is clear that McCain interprets the Second Amendment to mean that individuals have the right to bear arms. Obviously, sense the Supreme Court made the final decision, John McCain feels that it is the National Government's role to interpret the Second Amendment and what it means for each individual.


However, Barack Obama was not aware of the details of this case, and therefore was unable to form his stance on this particular issue. This case, which was currently under Supreme Court ruling at the time, is one of the most important cases involving the interpretation of the Second Amendment. I find it hard to believe that Barack Obama can thoroughly form an opinion on gun control and what the Second Amendment means to Americans without knowing what is currently taking place in the Supreme Court regarding gun control.

From the information he has provided on this topic, Senator Barack Obama does not intend on taking guns out of the hands of Americans. Yet, he does intend on placing several laws on an individual's right to bear arms and Obama does have gun control groups to support him. Barack also argues that it is the right of the state and local governments to constrain these rights and control how guns are used. Charlie Gibson asks Barack if he believes there should be mandatory registration for all guns. Obama does not directly answer this question which makes his view and stance on gun control unclear. Barack appeals to the "sportsmen" crowd by stating that he feels that it is important for many Americans to be able to fish, hunt, and take their kids out to teach them how to use a gun. However, the NRA (Natioanl Rifle Association) is doing everything in their power to put down Obama. There are also many people who feel that Obama is "trying to destroy the Second Amendment." I would not interpret Obama's statements concerning Gun Control to mean he is literally trying to take every individuals right to own a gun away, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.