On November 20, 2007, the United States Supreme Court announced that it will be taking on the first case involving the second amendment in nearly 70 years. The Second Amendment provides: “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,” and has long been the source of controversy due to its vague nature. The case being heard deals with the District of Colombia’s ban on handguns and the constitutionality of such restrictions of firearms. It can be argued that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” is exactly that; an undeniable right of American citizens to keep guns at home for private use. Other parties maintain that the original meaning of the amendment was to allow only members of a “well regulated militia” to possess firearms, and this court case will be a critical win for either side of the war on guns. Many of the articles and amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America are clearly worded and interpreted. Others are not. The Second Amendment can be interpreted several ways depending on who is doing the interpreting, and it seems that there will never be an end to the controversy, so what is an American citizen supposed to think? Are guns good, or are they bad? Unfortunately the answer is not that easy, so the problem must be analyzed logically. The main argument for stronger gun control and firearm bans is gun violence. If guns are harder to buy or all together outlawed, there will be a decrease in gun violence. Unfortunately there are several flaws in this hypothesis.First, anyone who uses or plans to use a firearm in an act of violence is already a criminal, so there is no deterrent for them to obtain their guns illegally. In fact there are benefits for criminals to obtain their guns outside of the law. When a firearm is bought through a licensed dealer, there are background checks, paperwork, permits and waiting periods, all designed to link a gun to its owner, so it would be advantageous for a criminal to bypass all of these steps and buy an untraceable gun on the black market. Then there are the law-abiding people of the US, who are left unprotected in their homes while armed criminals roam the street. Gun bans and strict gun control only hurt the people who follow the laws, not the ones who will actually commit violent crimes. Of course there is the other side of the argument; not just anyone who walks in off the street should be able to throw down some cash and walk away with a Glock. There has to be some sort of middle ground. American Citizens should be able to purchase and keep guns to protect themselves and their families but there has also got to be some control so anyone can’t just buy a firearm. This new Supreme Court case, scheduled to be heard in March 2008, will play a huge part in deciding the future of American gun owners, and could go either way at this point. The only question you have to ask yourself is “Do I feel lucky?” Well do ya?

sources: New Yotk Times, US Constitution