1. Kopel, David B.(2013, Feb. 2) "The Great Gun Control War of the 20th Century." Retrieved from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
This article demonstrates history on gun control and how firearm has influenced individuals. The article has a good and bad reactions to many who believe and disbelieve in gun control. This source is credible since it indicates history/truths and is significant to my point since it has to do with gun control and how it sways individual’s outlook with this issue.
2. Olsen, Scott. "Guns and Gun Control." NY Times. Nytimes.com, 20 Feb. 2013. Web. 22 Feb. 2013. .
This article is an outline on past occasions and how the gun followers will be influenced. Therefore this demonstrates how …show more content…
Buchanan, Wyatt. "State Lawmakers Propose Tough Gun Laws." SFGate. SF Gate, 7 Feb. 2013. Web. 13 Feb. 2013. . This is mostly about firearm laws which were proposed in California. This sources opinions are not for or against these laws, however portrays the real laws. Therefore, the source is exceptionally objective, fair, and professionally composed. This source is to a great degree dependable and an important piece of my …show more content…
Kellerman, Arthur L., and Frederick P. Rivara. (2013 Feb., 13)"Silencing the Silence on Gun Research.".
This article examines the purposes of firearm control and how the late shootings have not restricted weapons. This source is dependable it gives realities and foundation on how gun laws can influence society. This source is significant to my paper since it is about the firearm control and how it influences everyone in the country.
7. 2010 - McDonald v Chicago 561 US 3025 (201), Handgun bans are unconstitutional. Further solidifies ruling in Heller. Individual's right to keep and bear arms protected by the 2nd Amendment.
8. 2008 - District of Columbia v Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008). 2nd Amendment does protect the individual right to keep and bear arms. Bans on certain types of guns are ruled unconstitutional. This is a huge decision, as it reverses course from previous rhetoric present in Miller and Cruikshank which interpreted the amendment in terms of militia, or organized groups and instead acknowledges that individuals are protected regardless of the existence of a