The gun control debate hinges on how we interpret and wield the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads, in its entirety: “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.”

One view is that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” is an individual right, not to be infringed upon by government regulation. Many advocates of this view stand in opposition to any laws that would impact the ability to buy, carry, or accessorize any and all firearms.

Gun control advocates, by contrast, emphasize the first clause of the Second Amendment, which is said to imply that gun rights are meant to be “well regulated” by local, state, and federal legislative bodies. Those who argue in favor of stronger gun control laws may push for more extensive background checks, restrictions on who can buy a gun, restrictions on the kinds of guns that can be purchased, or even a total prohibition on the sale and purchase of firearms in the U.S.

Today, the debate centers on the permeation of gun violence in the United States, particularly in light of the rising frequency of mass and school shootings as well as issues relating to the sale of assault rifles, background checks for gun buyers, and the connection between gun violence and mental illness.

What we would like to know is:

Should the government stay out of gun control and keep with the constitution?



If NO, then what is the general idea of your group as to how the government should control guns?