Now, before anyone thinks that I do/don’t advocate certain persons with felonies or mental incapacities having fire-arms, please allow me to put this into perspective: This is about the Framers’ intent regarding the Second Amendment. These other aspects of certain persons being barred create assent/dissent on their own merits of constitutionality. I do not wish to get caught in a debate about those aspects. I maintain my own opinions inre this aspect of the Second Amendment. I will say this: Not all crimes are identical, even though they may be coded alike. Mental illness is a medical issue, and can be treated effectively, to my understanding. Given this exhaustive retinue of discussion, I have concluded that I believe that these …show more content…
The request to protect the right to keep and bear arms was almost universal and requested in plain English. There’s no way to confuse the meanings of the requests. Here are a few of the actual requests and proposals. Note New York’s request of wording.
New Hampshire’s convention requested the following addition to the Constitution:
“Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.”
Antifederalists in Pennsylvania’s wanted an amendment also, requesting the following be agreed upon:
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals…”
The following three states, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia, each required similar proposals and their requests included these exact words: “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms”.
That the founding fathers wanted the right to keep and bear arms protected was obvious. They believed that the militia was the only real defense of liberty against tyranny. They didn’t trust standing armies, theirs or any other, or their government — they wanted a country that really was just “the people”
When the constitution was written, nobody, not even the founders thought that the nation would survive. In his article “Gun-Control Foes
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” merely proclaims a purpose. It does not limit nor expand the scope of the sentence “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The clause’s text demonstrates that it brings an individual right to keep and bear arms (Bill of
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
In December 1791, the Second Amendment was made: The Second Amendment offers “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep arms, and shall not be infringed.” This basically means United States gives the right to its residents to keep arms, and it guaranteed individuals the right to possess arms for their own personal defense. In the past few decades there been thousands of pages that are written seeking to uncover the meaning of the “the people,” and “bear arms,” have been strongly debated.
“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” In our political climate today, there is an ongoing debate on the meaning of the second amendment. In particular, much controversy centers upon whether we should make gun control laws more strict like the laws in DC, or if we should make laws to encourage and embrace American citizens to own firearms and carry them in public, similar to laws in Vermont. In fact, some citizens wonder why we even have the second amendment in the first place.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (The Second Amendment). Ever since 1791, Americans have had the right to bare arms. Recently people have begun debating whether or not these rights should still apply and lawmakers have even been slowly taking them away. Our founding fathers were clear when they stated that these rights shall not be infringed.
Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.” (Texas State)
The debate over the right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment has been a hotly contested issue for many years in American history. The matter has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first; disputed between politicians on the liberal and conservative side along with issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage. The Supreme Court has officially defined the controversial Second Amendment by stating that states have the right to maintain a militia separate from a federally controlled army (Gale Encyclopedia, pg. 155-162). However, “Courts have consistently held that the state and federal governments may lawfully regulate the sale, transfer,
A very popular debate statement is whether the government should have stronger regulations on the restrictions of gun usage. “In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois , 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated.”
Chrystine Archer National Government T&R 12:30 Essay #1 10/03/2017 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution I chose to write about the Second Amendment which is the right for people to keep and bear arms simply because it is one of the most controversial amendments we have. The concern behind it stems from the question “who are we really protecting, the people or the government?” In this essay I plan to explain the history behind it, also how and why is it so important to the US constitution today?
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The constitution is clearly saying all citizens have the right to be able to own and carry a weapon or firearm. On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves (Cornell 1). This is showing how our founding fathers supported the right to bear arms.
The right to keep and bear arms was considered a fundamental, individual right in the original 13 colonies from the pre-Revolutionary period through the ratification of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution in 1791. The Amendment states: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right to keep and bear arms has been a topic of extreme controversy in this century and can be argued equally from both sides. The first side says that it is our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On the flip side, it is too dangerous and would increase the number of violent crimes. No matter which side is
According to The Second Amendment of the Constitution, the citizens of the United States have the right to own and bear arms, in order to form a well-regulated militia for the security of the states. This right has been discussed for decades as an important issue for the American society, and it has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century until nowadays. This right germinated with the threat to freedom that the standing army of professional soldiers brought to the Americans. Some argued that the right to bear arms is mainly concerned with self-defense while others argued that this right was implemented to avoid militia disarmament and protect the Free State. This right was
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” (Bill of Rights). This is the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. This is a document that grants all Americans certain inalienable rights. All citizens no matter their age or standing in society have some understanding of the Bill of Rights and the freedoms that it allows. One freedom that is granted to us, the right to bear arms, has become the center of a heated issue in today’s society and many years before. The majority of citizens have felt the impacts of guns, either positive or negative, during some point of their life. It is because of the fact that guns are a part of