CLA, presents the first argument that gun control is inherently embedded in the Second Amendment. This perspective relies heavily on the Militia clause of the Second Amendment. It presents the view that those who arm themselves must be a part of a militia and be well regulated. Nelson Lund Professor of law at George Mason University, presents an opposing view that citizens have the right to bear arms regardless of their association with a militia. However, Lund states this right is not absolute, similar to how the right to free speech guaranteed in the First Amendment is not absolute. For example, one is not allowed to yell fire in a crowded space or use words that will incite violence. These differing opinions of the Second Amendment have controlled the legal arguments surrounding guns in America for decades. This question is so fundamental that it was brought up in the Supreme Court in District of Colombia V. Heller 2008. This case addresses the fundamental issue of whether or not citizens have the right to bear arms. Delivering the opinion of the Court Justice Scalia states that citizens do have the right to bear arms. Furthermore, Scalia takes an originalist approach to the constitution and states that militia is a prefatory statement because at the time it referred to all able-bodied men who were capable of being called to service. In addition, Scalia states that allowing only those in a state-sponsored military to carry firearms would create the exact force which the amendment was attempting to protect against (District of Colombia V. Heller 2008). Scalia’s interpretation of the constitution in Heller has brought about many arguments as to what restrictions can be placed on citizens’ rights to bear arms. The court’s opinion in Heller was used to then incorporate the right to bear arms to states in McDonald V. Chicago 2010 (Nieto 2011). Furthermore, the Supreme court has extended this ruling to all forms of bearable arms in C...