Let's stick with Supreme Court decisions. Last week I asked you to consider the right of association as it applies to the Boy Scouts. This week - while the Aurora shooting is still fresh - let's consider the Second Amendment.
Renewed calls for gun control have led the gun lobby to argue - again - that limits on gun ownership violate the Second Amendment. But these arguments seem to suggest that gun rights are absolute and that no restrictions on guns - arms actually - are ever justifiable. Does this mean you can own a rocket propelled grenade launcher or a tank? As we know from the section on civil liberties, speech is limited for certain reasons. Does the same hold true for the right to bear arms? If so - or if not - why? What are the reasons it does or does not apply? What reasoning allows us to own a handgun and not a tank? How much does this reasoning allow?
I recommend looking at recent Supreme Court decisions like DC v. Heller and McDonald v Chicago at the least. Focus your attention as much as you can on arguments made by Supreme Court justices since they are the ones whose opinions matter - but other commentators are worth perusing as well.
As with all these assignments, provide a rational and objective overview of the debate first, and after doing so you may provide your personal opinion.
