Debate in the public domain with regard to gun control can amicably be resolved through legal goodwill paving way for the relevant legislation. In the United States, gun control issues have been a center of interest and debate by the stakeholders torn in between gun ownership legalization or completely banning guns. Several years of debate seemed futile in many instances but with political will, it is likely to end in a reliable solution. This paper will focus upon the debate of gun control presenting the argument that how this ban came to be challenged in the first place and how this ruling of the court was manipulated and used by lawmakers. It will then explain the justifications for arms possession considering the changing society and explain the precautions that will assist and promote proper use of guns.
The changes in policy against the laws of gun control started after the ruling of a court in Columbia. According to the Christian Science Monitor (2007), a showdown was looming after a US appeals court ruled against gun ban in District of Columbia. The ruling seemed to depart from a 1939 Supreme Court ruling, even if precedents might not tie a judge. The panel stated in its ruling that owning a gun was a constitutional right. The provisions of the Second Amendment on which the Supreme Court based its ruling go to the extent of allowing a well regulated militia to maintain security of a Free State. The Christian Science Monitor pointed out that the security of the public goes further than allowing militia possess guns legally. Self defense and not mere constitutional right to possess a gun was the key argument in the judgment. Since the law in the District of Columbia stated that guns should be disassembled or trigger locked, it was argued that safety would be enhanced. It was hence the beginning of a platform to legalize the ownership of weapons due to the changing society and the importance of self defense and