Research Paper on:
Debate on Gun Control

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." For decades, opponent and proponents of stricter bun control have battled about how the Second Amendment should be interpreted. Opponents of  gun control, such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) assert that the amendment protects the rights of every individual Americans to own a firearm. The NRA typically takes a stance  that prohibits any gun control legislation, such as gun registration. Advocates of gun control, such as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, argue that the Second Amendment was never  meant to be interpreted as pertaining to individual rights, but rather to states various militia regiments, which today would be roughly equivalent to the national guard (Byrd 175). Looking at  the issues, as espoused by these two extreme camps, reveals the volatile nature of this debate. At the 2001 UN conference entitled "Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light  Weapons," various international representatives legislated for the implementation of mechanisms at the national level that would facilitate eliminating the "wide availability of guns" (Feder 45). Opponents to gun control, which  generally are politically conservative, counter this argument by pointing out that the vast majority of human suffering originates from the "muzzles of state authority" not from individuals (Feder 45). Undersecretary  of State John R. Bolton, who led the US delegation to the 2001 conference, asserted that, given a choice between following the will of the international community or the Bill  of Rights, the Bush administration would unequivocally back the US Constitution and the individual right to bear arms (Feder 45). In response to Boltons comments, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California)  cited the case of the US v Miller in 1939 as evidence that the stance of the Supreme Court was with those backing the interpretation that the Second Amendment supports