District Of Columbia V. Heller Case Analysis

I personally believe that the meaning of a “well-regulated militia” is when citizens are properly following the laws and abide the rules of bearing arms. Militia can be defined as, “An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers” according to Gary the Gun Nut’s post on Thomhartmann.com. In the District of Columbia v. Heller case, gun control was the purpose problem. The case resulted in protecting the “Second Amendment of an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,...” in which was a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court.
According to statelaws.findlaw.com, the District of Columbia does not allow open carry of a firearm. My definition of the Second Amendment would affect the legitimacy of the gun control law in the District of Columbia because I believe people should be allowed to openly carry
I understand that the District of Columbia would like to prohibit the carrying of firearm because they would not like a shooting to happen. Many shooting have occurred these past years from people opening fire at a crowd of citizens. Hundreds of people have died from gun shootings and I think that the District of Columbia is trying to prevent shootings from happening in their location. I believe that people would be safe when carrying a firearm in case a shooting where to happen or something were to harm them, they could protect not just themselves but others as well. People commit crimes everyday, even if it is prohibited to carry firearms, many people will find a way to get one either to protect themselves or hurt other. The shooting that have happened could not have been predicted. It happened by regular citizens. I want to be able to defend myself so I support the Second Amendment on people being able to “keep and bear