Paul Barrett's Essay: The Right To Bear Arms

924 Words4 Pages
Paul Barrett wrote about a discussion whether or not we should amend the second amendment. He used the words from a retired supreme court justice Paul Stevens to help justify the points on why we should amend it. The main points that came out are that the 2nd amendment was made for militias or the military to bear arms and didn’t let the federal government regulate weapons but only left it to the state governments. The right to bear arms is essentially not an unlimited one. As the country grows older the interpretation of the 2nd amendment changes as well. With all this being said I felt like Barrett relies too much on the words of the retired justice member. It would have been better if he would have opened up his article to numerous justice members or other federal judges. However, Barrett helps bring in one of the major points why people feel and argue the reason the 2nd amendment should be amended. Matt Friedman wrote about gun control groups filing lawsuits against the NJ Attorney General in order to open up a report on smart guns to help justify the law. His article essentially talks about what actually is gun control. In New Jersey they have tried to pass…show more content…
She talks about all the important reasons why we need gun control and why it is an issue as well. One eye-popping statistic is that a majority of the worst acts of violence dealing with a gun are by people who have never actually violated the law in America before. People say that such violent gun acts are by criminals anyway. So putting a ban on all guns from law bidding citizens would have no real effect. However, it would be good if they showed a statistical chart on all the people who committed violent guns acts and break it down to if they were criminals before or if it was their first offense. The article helps bring in a different perspective on why gun control would benefit
Open Document