The definition of the Second Amendment has been an ongoing debate for the past few years. Most people discuss this issue because they want to know whether states have actual power to interpret the Second Amendment. Many have interpreted the advent of the Second Amendment with new and innovative interpretations. Let's give people the power to see the Second Amendment. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay However, it is crucial to understand the situation the Framers found themselves in. The argument about the Second Amendment had two sides: the conservative side, which people believe was just for consolidation purposes. This common part is in favor of stricter gun control laws. With stricter regulations, they have less crime. Having stricter gun regulations may reduce crime, but it limits people who want the law to own a firearm from using one by taking the opposite side. The opposing side argues that, without any limitations, people should have access to guns. This common party prefers stricter gun control laws. They are experiencing fewer wrongdoings with more stringent regulations. Having stricter rules around firearms may curb wrongdoing, but it restricts people who want to own a firearm by law by not sanctioning them from using one, which does the opposite. This antithesis party argues that inhabitants should have access to weapons without any restrictions. One group that is part of the collective team is the National Rifle Sodality (NRA). The National Rifle Association advocates for stricter gun laws for law-abiding residents. The debate over the Second Amendment is primarily about its interpretation. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights states, “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.” It means giving people the right to bear arms. To fully understand the debate between the two sides it is necessary to go back in time, when gun control laws began. One of the very first gun control laws went into effect in 1911, the Sullivan Act. This law states: "...permits to carry firearms issued at the discretion of local law enforcement." It penalized civilians for carrying a weapon concealed by a person registered with the state. This bill was testing how gun control would happen in the future. The group favored less gun control as the Second Amendment took full advantage of it in 1911. However, the Sullivan Act was established 20 years later; the conservative group began to act at the federal level. In 1934, the National Firearms Act was enacted. The National Firearms Act of 1934 stated, “…requires the registration, with the federal government, of fully automatic firearms.” If a citizen broke the National Firearms Act law, civilians would receive a $200 fee for breaking this law. During this time, Homer Cummings was an opponent of the Second Amendment. Homers developed an orchestration to record every gun and every person who owns a gun. However, World War II began to scare people, realizing that they were giving the right to be bulwarks. By expressing his opinion on how the Second Amendment would become an issue, he opened the door to discussion about the Second Amendment. Gun control was revived around the 1960s, but more vigorously than before. The peoplethey were campaigning using the deaths of Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy and JFK. These murders occurred between the years 1963 and 1968. Since a gun caused these murders, this made for an excellent opportunity for people to begin pursuing the Second Amendment, giving it a political perspective in modern liberalism. Around the same time the Vietnam War was breaking out, giving citizens more reason to misjudge guns and wartime violence. By creating stricter gun laws, people don't consider how it affects our country as a whole. Katie Pavlich studied how the U.S. munitions industry and commercial weapons create a total of "$32 billion in the economy." What would happen to the firearms industry? Not only would it have an incredible impact on the American economy. However, instead of stopping gun crimes, the black market will increase sales. Another example of how the opposing team opposes stricter laws is the case District of Columbia v. Heller, this case brought up by Dick Anthony Heller, applied to be able to keep a gun in his home. However, soon after, he received a letter informing him that the application he had submitted denied him the right to obtain a gun. Heller argued, “…they violated his Second Amendment right to have an operational firearm in his home without a license.” When Heller supported him, he returned to the Second Amendment, letting the court know that it was his right to bear arms. District of Columbia v. Heller was an important case because the district court rejected his request. However, the U.S. Court of Appeals heard the case again, giving Heller his defense. However, just like this case, school shootings play an important role in how citizens view the Second Amendment. A shooting fatally struck Saugus High School. Elizabeth Wolf tells this story by finding that "a 16-year-old shooter killed two students and wounded three and shot himself." This shooting was one of many that occurred across the country in 2019. Knowing that a minor, not even an adult, takes possession of a weapon scares citizens. Many school shootings are carried out by minors, which makes citizens wonder how guns are everywhere. However, as the opposing side argues that stricter laws violate the Second Amendment, other cases have also increased. McDonald v. City of Chicago was a case brought up in 2010. Otis McDonald brought this case when Chicago's strict laws prohibited him from owning a gun. McDonald stated, “…generally prohibited new registration of handguns and made registration a prerequisite for possession of a firearm” McDonald. McDonald argued that the firearms ban violated his Second Amendment. The court's decision was 5-4, favoring McDonald regarding his right as a citizen. Beretta USA Corp. is a great example of how companies are being affected. Maryland passed the Firearms Safety Act. This act stated: “…restricting the authority for a person to wear, carry, or transport a handgun.” Which limited semi-rifles, including the amount of ammunition a citizen can carry. Beretta soon after decided to build another factory in Tennessee. However, once Beretta saw how limited it made his company, Beretta decided to move to Tennessee permanently. Maryland's new gun law created over 300 jobs at the Beretta Company. Beretta released a statement about how this law has limited the growth of their company. Beretta was one.