Compare And Contrast, Supporters Of The Second Amendment

In Contrast, Supporters of the Second Amendment argue that restrictions on guns will not decrease crime and Americans have the right to protect themselves. Similarly, Pro-gun activists argue, without the right to keep and bear arms, we revert to humanity's default state of "law of the jungle," where only the strong survive, where the big rule the small, and where the weak die in a puddle of blood, flesh, and urine. In the constitution it states, humans have the right to protect themselves from people that are bigger and stronger than them. However, others argue that it’s not a gun problem it’s a culture problem. It's easier for many people to focus on an inanimate object than the person behind the gun. Firearm manufacturers should not be responsible for gun violence because knife owners are not liable for stabbing and hammer makers are not liable for clubbing. For instance, people should be responsible for their actions because guns are made to kill people, it’s one's choice to decide if they will kill someone. Citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms because the person behind the gun is the one with the problem.
The second clause of the amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," was nearly erased from the constitution in 1939 by a confusing Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Miller. The debate about the second amendment went on many times before deciding on a situation. Most of the population should know that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right, it establishes a collective right, which cannot be legally asserted by an individual. Therefore, many people in America do not fully understand the Second