After the recent appearence of several armed citizens at President Obama's healthcare rallies, the right to bear arms has come back into the national spotlight. There was a small group of protesters that brought semi-authomatic assault rifles to the meetings, while others wore their holstered pistols. In states like Arizona and New Hampshire, residents are permitted to carry their weapons as long as they're properly registered.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution states that, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The most controversial aspect of this amendment lies in the interpretation of what a reasonable "arm" is in 2009. Moreover, how much should the government be able to restrict US citizens' ability to own a firearm?
The Healthcare debate illicts passionate feelings on both sides. These Townhall meetings that members of Congress and the President are holding draw hundreds if not thousands of protesters on each side of this issue. Critics of guns rights advocates are maintaining that the second amendment should not give permission to carry a semi-automatic weapon in public nevermind a passionate political event. On the other hand, guns rights proponents argue that an armed citizenry, in any environment, is what protects us from government oppression.
What do you think? Should firearms be allowed at these public meetings or is this going too far? Does the Second Amendment allow us to carry firearms (of any kind) in public? What do you think the framers of the Constitutions would say about this controversy?
