How America Should Perceive The Second Amendment Essay

The following critical analysis of the Essay, “The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms” by Lee Professor of Law at William and Mary Law School, William Van Alstyne, is intended to highlight a few of the different short-comings and argumentative fallacies presented by even the most legally astute individuals who oppose forms of gun control. While the author does present a multi-facet and well-orchestrated presentation of fact and principle, there are two essential claims being asserted on his part. The author’s intent is to demonstrate the importance of gun right protection and to justify the NRA’s practices in the name of doing so. In my dissection of the essay, I intend to demonstrate the argumentative fallacies and examine the ways in which the NRA is generally harmful to the progression of gun control reform, and therefore public safety in the United

“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.” - Second Amendment. Throughout history, this sentence of twenty seven words has caused an intense debate. The polemic is that some people claim that a gun control policy is unconstitutional, while others disagree and even say it is necessary in order to reduce crime. Now, what does gun control mean? If it means to analyze who is responsible enough to own a gun by a “Universal Background Check”; that sounds right to everyone. But in the article “What Are Obama’s Gun Control Proposals? An Easy Guide” published in the National Journal by Matt Vasilogambros. The author states that the “gun-control

The Federalists and the Anti - Federalists played an indispensable part in the establishment of the American Constitution. Federalists were supporters of the constitution, while Anti federalist were against the ratification of the Constitution. Federalists believed in the idea of a larger heterogeneous republic whereas anti federalists wanted a small homogenous republic. Famous federalists like James Madison, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton are responsible for giving us paramount pieces of historic documents in the form of “the Federalist papers”. The Federalist papers were 85 documents urging the ratification of the US Constitution. Anti federalist side included people like Samuel Adams, George Mason and Patrick Henry, and they believed the Articles of Confederation should be altered rather than completely changed in the form of the Constitution. Concurring with the Federalist side, it is imperative to see that the Federalists’ argument was more viable, due to the fact that larger republics and “checks and balances” are useful tools in controlling a democracy. We can’t compare ourselves to the way Sparta and Athens operated. Our country would thrive more under a stronger national government rather than a stronger state government.

How can the original writing and intent of the second amendment, be relevant in our society today?

The right to bear arms is a birth given right to all Americans by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment has become controversial recently due to the technological advancement of firearms. Modern firearms are capable of both high rates of fire and greater capacities of ammunition, unlike the single shot muskets that were available at the time of the Second Amendment’s conception. American liberals view these improvements in firearms as dangerous and unnecessary. However, no matter how dangerous firearms may be, the Second Amendment is a necessity for one factor alone: protection from one’s own government and it must be upheld. The Second Amendment provides a physical tool for Americans to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, it allows Americans to form militias against a tyrannical government, and it allows Americans to maintain comparable firearms of the U.S. government in order to prevent the potential loss of American freedoms in the future.

Gun control is one of the most debated about topic today in America; between news outlet, the public, and politicians. As some politicians look to resolve the gun control issues, with banning them, imposing more restriction to sellers, buyers and owner; some people and politicians consider the second amendment to be relic and should be removed from the constitution. History has shown us time and time again even through all the violence and chaos in the world and America, that there is a reason for the creation of the second amendment. From history of America independence in 1776 to the ratification of the bill of right in 1791 the 2nd amendment still remains relevant form it creation, to modern times, and the protection of America’s future; for the freedom of its inhabitants and citizens. The once influential 20th century thinker George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Looking back into ancient history, the history of second amendment, recent and current history we can find clues that will support the relevance of the 2nd amendment. We will also define the second amendment and try to find solutions to our current problems from what our forefathers had say.

During the Revolutionary War, colonists believed that they needed a sense of unified government, so this led to the creation of the Articles of Confederation, the first written constitution of the United States (history.com). Although the Articles of Confederation had its strengths, such as allowing the central government to create treaties and maintain military, it had many weaknesses, such as preventing the central government to levy taxes and regulate trade. It also could not be changed unless there was a unanimous decision and it lacked a stable currency. Since the creation of the Articles of Confederation had many issues and weaknesses, the Continental Congress rewrote the Articles into what is now known as the U.S Constitution. The Constitution established a national government, guaranteed basic rights for the colonists and revised almost everything that was wrong in the original Articles, such as the sovereignty that resided primarily in the states and the lack of power from the national government. The Constitution was later ratified by all 13 states in May 1790, with the support of the Federalist Party. [A] Federalists believed in the commitment to a strong national government and in the practice of a separation of powers. However, Anti-Federalists had the opposite view which was the opposition of a strong national government, the support for small landowners, and the representation of rights of the people. Anti-Federalists believed that a strong national government

Most people would link violence and crime problems with gun control in America. The debate that Americans face today is the freedom the Second Amendment gives citizens and whether or not the country should repeal it. While some people feel that repealing it should solve the problem, others believe that it is one of the most important basic freedoms we have as Americans. Federal gun control laws are unconstitutional, and I believe the Second Amendment is both an individual and state right.

“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.

​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

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.

From the Articles of Confederation to the creation of the Constitution, people were divided as to whether or not the central government should have more power. In the Articles of Confederation, Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry, believed that tyranny would pursue if the government was stronger than the states and did not want to repeat what happened with Parliament and the king. However, the Federalists, such as George Washington, thought that the states would be able to defend themselves from rebellions, like Shay’s Rebellion, and the government could keep the states organized with trade and economy. This debate is similar to the debate of the Constitution’s ratification. With the U.S Constitution, the opposers, such as Mercy Otis Warren, thought that “the executive and legislat[ure] [were] so dangerously blended that they give just cause for alarm…”

After the United States Constitution was written in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, America had to vote to either ratify the new Constitution, or to keep their old Articles of Confederation. A group of nationalists called the Federalists tried to convince Americans that they should vote to ratify the new Constitution while a group called the Anti-Federalists tried to persuade Americans that they should keep the Articles of Confederation instead. The Federalists argued that the government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak and that the national government needed to be more powerful to better provide for the welfare of the people. The Anti-Federalists argued that there was nothing wrong with their current government and that

In Molly Ivins op-ed “Get a Knife, get a Gun, but Get Rid of Guns,” she examines the true meaning behind the second amendment as well as its relevancy in the present United States. Ivins interprets the second amendment as it is written in which the only group with the freedom to bear arms are well-regulated militias (Ivins 384). Though Ivins only evidence throughout her piece is the clear definition of the second amendment, the simplicity of it only adds to the satire in which she is writing. Ivins could easily incorporate court cases and legal documentation better defining the true meaning of the second amendment, but it is her choice to only include the definition in the original constitution. The evidence, or lack thereof, aids in the presentation

Drawing influence from Levinson (1989) once again, I would like to argue that there is not or should not be an understanding that the Second Amendment is of greater importance and a higher degree of static understanding than other aspects of the Constitution. Levinson critiques this condition of the American population as follows; “If one does accept the plausibility of any of the arguments on behalf of a strong reading of the Second Amendment, but, nevertheless, rejects them in the name of social prudence and the present-day consequences produced by finicky adherence to earlier understandings, why do we not apply such consequentialist criteria to each and every part of the Bill of Rights” (p. 657). The Second Amendment, of course, is an important piece of the American Constitution. However, it is not or should not be the case that this particular amendment is so hotly contested while other similarly important articles go unquestioned. There seems to be an absolute political influence in the debate of this topic which is simply unfair to the amendment and Americans. While this issue does not hit directly on the constitutionality of gun possession, it does bring to light one point of consideration when trying to determine the legality of this seemingly exclusively American desire.