As is but natural and expected in any vibrant democracy, the issue of gun control has attracted much assertions for and against it. If on the one side there are people and groups who support the constitutional right to bear arms, claiming that the common citizens do need guns to protect themselves and their loved ones from crime, on the other side there are citizens who vouch for stricter gun laws, as they assert that guns give way to much crime and violence in the society (Kleiman 148). Both the sides extend such arguments in their support that sound pragmatic and viable. In an academic context, it would be really informative and interesting to delve on the varied arguments extended by people on both sides of this flaring issue.
It is a known fact that the American legal system had its moorings in the English Common Law (Strauss 34). However, when it comes to the issue pertaining to the right or prerogative of the common citizens to bear arms, America has affiliated to a stance that is very unlike the avenues available in the English Common Law (Strauss 34). As is evident, the laws in any nation, to a large extent, often have their genesis in the history and socio-political background of that country. Thereby, going by the historical realities amidst which America emerged to be a free and sovereign nation; the constitution of America extended to its citizens the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the Bill of Rights and was enacted as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of America. Therefore, it is evident that in a historical and political context, America affiliated to a very liberal and tolerant approach, as far as the keeping and bearing of arms by its citizens was concerned (Strauss 34).
The irony is that varied social opinion makers, legal scholars and lay citizens have facilitated varied and mutually contradictory interpretations of the right to bear arms existent in the Constitution. There are people