The Right to Bear Arms in the United States

Throughout the political history of the United States the Second Amendment has come under greater strain than any other single line in the constitution. Both sides, right and left, have continually debated this issue and its validity in our modern society. Quite recently the Supreme Court struck down the comprehensive firearm ban in the District of Columbia. This event brought a great upheaval into the game, once again bringing the Second Amendment under fire and revealing the split nature of the issue. One side of the issue states that the federal government should maintain the Second Amendment in all districts and cities; the other that the individual states and municipalities should have the final say on whether or not firearms should be regulated or not in their respective domains.

In essence, I believe that individual states should choose to uphold or deny certain specifics of the Second Amendment to its inhabitants. Although this statement does come with some hesitation there are numerous examples to back its validity.

In Washington D.C a complete handgun ban was put in place from 1975 to 2007. During this period the percentage of gun related crime dramatically shifted to show a positive change. The number of homicides lowered and the city began to become a safer living environment for years to come.
Tantamount to the D.C. ban, Chicago has a ban currently in place. It has been shown to sizablely reduce the amount of violent crimes in the metropolitan area.

When we look at the opposing side, the primary argument circles around the central argument that the Second Amendment applies to all inhabitants of this country and therefore should be upheld in all constituencies regardless of the political and social bias of each individual legislative body.
Although opponents to firearm bans cannot deny that they do have a noticeable effect on the violent crime rates, they still hold true to the ideal that everyone, in this country, should abide by the same laws and should be given the same rights.

In response to this, pro-firearm control folks have argued that the Second Amendment applies only when a civil militia exists to protect the state and all property within it. And because we have a standing military force, no militia exists, and therefore the Second Amendment is no longer applicable to the current state of this nation.
In conclusion, I feel that in this modern democratic society, where a standing military force of nearly 1.3 million exists, the Second Amendment should no longer apply and individual states and cities should have the right and be expected to regulate firearms as they see fit. In the case of Chicago where the Supreme Court is currently deciding the fate of the existing firearm regulations, I feel that they should rule in favor of the regulations and find that the Second Amendment is null and void in this day and age.