Guns A Loaded Argument By Paul Rosenzweig Summary

The Second Amendment states that “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”.1 It is important to understand that the Second Amendment was created in order to allow the American people to form militias in response to a tyrannical government attempting to suppress the American way of life. In order for Americans to form militias, they must uphold their freedom to bear arms as a

America needs to institute, and initiate gun control laws throughout the entire nation. But not everybody who inhabits the United States believes in regulating arms. Those who are against establishing gun laws argue that gun control directly infringes upon their “right to bear arms” granted to them by the 2nd Amendment. Anti gun control supporters, such as the National Rifle Association, often claim that the act of regulating guns is a sufficient reason why such an Amendment was introduced in the constitution; to protect themselves from any and all forms of violation of civil liberties and freedom. Supporters of anti gun laws are unwilling to welcome any interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that do not match up “word for word,” as was written in the Bill of Rights.

Now lets ask ourselves, what does the second amendment mean? Who gets to keep and bear arms? One side focuses on the phrase “A well-regulated militia” to argue that only people who are in a militia such as the National Guard have the right to bear arms. The other side focuses on the phrase “The right of the people” to argue that law-abiding citizens, whether or not they are in a militia have the right to bear arms. Who’s correct? For further insight, the wisdom and prudence of our founding fathers proves to be instructive, as they lived in this influential time. In the Federal Farmer number 28, Richard Henry Lee wrote, “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves.” In congruence with Richard’s thinking Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison saying, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which states that “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”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

“A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear

One of the most controversial issues in our society today is the topic of private gun ownership and gun control laws. This controversy has arisen mostly due to the different ways that the second constitutional amendment is interpreted. The amendment states that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Lott, 2000). On one side of the issue, there are those that believe that the amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. On the other side are those that contend that the amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.

The debate over stricter gun laws has been ongoing in the United States for quite some time now. Individuals who oppose stricter gun control laws argue that the second amendment to the constitution of the United States constitute part of the bill of rights that protect the right of American citizens to bear arms, and any attempt to set up laws for gun control will be a direct violation of this (Hofstadter 10). They argue that the primary purpose of the amendment was to ensure that American Citizens had the capability to protect themselves against criminal activities and defend the country against external aggression. From a personal perspective, the recent surge in instances of gun violence in the United States of America indicates that stricter gun control laws are necessary for the safety of the American citizenry. Thus, this paper is going to focus on highlighting the benefits of more stringent gun control laws and why members of the public should support it.

In America, the average amount of people shot per year is 100,000; over ten thousand defenseless people are murdered. The Second Amendment’s proclamation that “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” has been an extensive topic of debate. Moreover, the amendment has been one of many debates over the several years throughout America. The discussion of gun control is often debated as to whether or not it is morally right to legally bypass the Second Amendment to avoid unlawful uses of arms. The Second Amendment allows citizens to carry firearms specifically for protection, gun control hinders that right and places civilians’ lives in danger. In short, the U.S. government’s intrusive restrictions on gun laws prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves with firearms.

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 paltry twenty-seven words, present in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, have been a major focal point of the seemingly endless debate over whether, and for what purposes, US citizens have a right to own firearms. Positions vary wildly from those that hold these words to mean citizens have the right to violent revolt to those that believe they only allow the United States Armed Forces to exist, as well as a multitude of positions in between.

"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." These are the words of the second amendment in the United States Constitution. The amendments guarantee america citizens the right to bear arms. This right grants men have the right to bear arms their for protection or for the militia they were served in. This amendment today should grant all civilians to own guns.

The Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution is fiercely debated and interpreted differently among American citizens and argued with between the Legislative and Judicial branches of our government. “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,” (Brooks). Because of the Second Amendment, citizens have the right to possess firearms and use them for protection. When researching the origin of the Second Amendment, its modern applications, and its relevance in today’s society, one can determine the Second Amendment’s current implications on today’s society.

Second Amendment rights must be the most controversial section of the Constitution, it most definitely has to be the most challenged. Lawsuits have been brought up against the Second Amendment for many years, challenging whether or not it should still be a part of the Constitution, and the meaning behind the verbiage used. The anti-gun crowd has attempted multiple times to prove the Second Amendment should apply only to a militia and that the average citizen has no right to own a firearm. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the largest lobbyist group for pro-gun rights and one of the most powerful interest groups in politics today. They have successfully supported the defense of the peoples’ right to own firearms for many years. After many years of failing to accomplish their agenda, the anti-gun crowd has a new tactic: instead of facing the multimillion members of the NRA (Statistic Brain Research Institute, 2014) they are now going after the gun manufacturers and dealers. They cannot stop the sale of guns therefore they want to eliminate the source. This paper will identify the historical foundation of the Second Amendment, describe the National Rifle Association’s involvement, and site the legal precedence and challenges.

People misuse or overuse the right to bear arms. Society believes since it is written in the constitution, we are able to own a gun for individual self defense or other purposes. Notably, the “right of self-defense is described by St. George Tucker as the first law of nature.”” In other cases, people believe it should not be in the constitution because it can be dangerous. However, another theory is that the constitutions defining statement is the people are to protect our democratic values. Uphold our traditional principles by defending against the foreign threats or domestic tyranny. With all of these concluding solutions to the nations debate over the right to bear arms, it is no wonder the U.S. has not come to a final decision. America, of course, will most likely never come to an agreement. Despite the argument, the second amendment is shaped to benefit the

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