Right To Bear Arms

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” 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.

Across the United States of America a debate rages on daily, that debate is whether or not to allow the public to obtain and operate firearms. The right to bear arms has been fused together with American culture for hundreds of years. Many advocates for gun control are against citizens of the United States being able to possess and operate firearms, even though it is a necessary evil and is a right of every man and woman across the country. Gun control in the United States is a dangerous topic but one that needs to be addressed. American citizens have the right to bear arms, and the evidence is there to prove that it can be done effectively and safely.

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.

“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.

​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

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 opposite side of this debate consists of those who claim that the amendment guarantees some sort of individual right to arms. This view comes from the literal wording of the Second Amendment, which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Along with this argument, the NRA and other groups in opposition of gun control argue that the first, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments are all constructed to refer to the citizens as individuals and not as a collective state. These gun advocates feel that if one is to give a rational interpretation of the collective view to the constitution, then one would have to assume that the Framers referred to the individuals in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments; to the states in the second amendment, and then separated the states and the people in the tenth amendment, although they feel that this was inconsistent with the wording of the second amendment (5).

In the United States the right to own a gun is enshrined by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The text of the Second Amendment 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” (Adams, 2004). The founding fathers borrowed this idea from Niccolo Machiavelli, the Italian thinker. He wrote about the weapons necessary for freedom to defend themselves, to hunt, and to protect the state against foreign invasion. For two hundred years, this tradition has become an integral part of American culture that spawned many cultural phenomena that have become the hallmark of the United States. For example, duels in the desert areas of the

The Right to Bear Arms was the second amendment put into place when creating the nation. It gives the people of our country the right to keep and own a gun. Today, just over two hundred years later, one of the biggest debates in society is on gun control and how the people should be handling their weapons. The gun control in the country is something that should be taken more seriously as lives and well beings are at stake.