When they drafted the Constitution, the Framers were aware of the many flaws already contained within it and anticipated the need to make additions in the future, prompting them to include the Bill of Rights as the first revision and two methods of editing process. However, the wording of the Bill of Rights leaves the true intent with which our founders included them open to interpretation, with a wide range of consequences. The Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from taking any action that would prohibit or restrict individual gun ownership, preventing legislation that would fully address the exorbitant cases of gun violence in this country, and therefore for the common good of the people, from being repealed. We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Today, when there is a nationwide debate about the Second Amendment, we hear a lot of reference to the fact that it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, and therefore it should remain immortal, but never according to the original intent with which it is been written or by the fact that parts of the Constitution have been altered over almost every generation. Perhaps partly because of the controversy surrounding it, only a handful of Supreme Court cases have involved the Second Amendment, notably the United States v. Cruikshank (1875) and Presser v. Illinois (1886) decisions, which established that the only The effect is to “limit the powers of a national government” and limits only the ability of “Congress and the national government,” not “that of the states” to impose firearms laws. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens noted this fact, stating that the Second Amendment was reframed from a right that was “adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were well regulated,” to one in which federal judges have “the ultimate power” to determine the validity of state regulations on the use of weapons by both civilians and militias.” He goes on to say that rewriting the Second Amendment to include the words “when serving in the militia” would create the perfect balance between ensuring the ability of the people to defend themselves from excessive and tyrannical government, while at the same time allowing for reasonable federal intervention. intervention through firearm sales laws and ownership restrictions. As established by these previous Supreme Court rulings, the federal government has little power to restrict access to firearms, as that responsibility rests solely with individual states. As a result, past attempts by the federal government to reduce gun violence have been limited to watering down firearms legislation such as the Brady Bill and the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which simply mandated background checks for all sales of firearms and prohibited the sale of firearms. future manufacture, but not the possession or purchase of military-grade assault weapons. Of these two, the 1994 assault weapons ban was the most useless, as it did not address the issue of gun use, which accounts for the majority of firearm-related deaths in the United States[iii]. The reality today is that the United States has the highest rate of gun-related violence, as well as the highest number of guns per capita of any large developed nation (with nearly 89 guns per 100 people). It is therefore not surprising that there is a large gap in public opinion.