Assignment Help Online: should the courts limit discussions of control to guns for hunting and protection, as was the original intent of the founders?
Please provide an example of an issue where the result of legal reasoning could differ from moral reasoning. Why is this the case?
Sometimes our moral reasoning may conflict with legal reasoning. With this in mind, let’s consider the concept of gun control. When the second amendment was created (the right to bear arms) the founders wanted to protect the common citizen from being overrun by the government. But when it was created, we did not have guns such as AK-47s or other assault rifles. With this in mind, do you find that the court system should support no limits on gun control? Or should the courts limit discussions of control to guns for hunting and protection, as was the original intent of the founders? Because the government (i.e., the police and military) have access to these types of weapons, do the people also need them in order to defend themselves in the case of tyranny? What are your thoughts?