The Issue Of The Second Amendment

“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.

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” (United States Constitution). This amendment was made in order to keep the freedom of the people of the United States safe from a tyrannical government. This is not only inferred from but proved by the words, “being necessary to the security of a free State”.

Most Americans of today should cling to the second amendment for their protection because that will allow citizens to hold their firearms wherever they go for their own safety. People also believe that by adhering to the second amendment, would keep them informed about the upcoming attacks so citizens would not be in fear. Many people have been harmed by legal firearms for a long time now and I truly believe that there should be gun laws in every state for them to be banned

The Second Amendment is one of the most controversial amendments in today’s society. There are commonly two sides that fight with each other over the definition of this amendment. The pro-gun, or what is commonly referred to as “gun nuts”, have the firm belief that the American people have the right to not only carry a gun, but to carry any type of gun that they want, while anti-gun groups want to get rid of the right to carry a gun all together unless that person is a soldier or police officer.

While presented through an amendment in the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms has been and continues to be a subject of controversy often due to the advancement of firearms over time, and overall vagueness of the Second Amendment. Examples of vagueness discrepancies are often found in interpreting the concept of what it entails when supporting a “well-regulated militia.” The development of firearms has also proven to be a major subject of debate as modern day weapons are significantly more advanced than what existed during the creation of the Second Amendment. Lastly, the argument of which citizens the Second Amendment should protect or not protect based on their criminal background or other factors has been an ongoing debate. These subjects do not cover all aspects of debate surrounding the Second Amendment, but have been tried in many Supreme Court cases and are subjects of controversy in modern politics.

Ever since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791 the right of the people to keep and bear arms has played a factor in the United States history. Sides have been taken and people have fought over the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Everybody has an opinion on every topic that has ever come up. While opinions can vary, there can be some common grounds for viewpoints. Commonly, the Second Amendment is looked at as a two-sided issue; (1) Citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms and (2) Citizens should not be allowed to own and carry firearms. But in looking at a community of people who own firearms, it is evident that even in what seems to be a two sided argument has room for many different positions on one side

Those that oppose upholding the Second Amendment should consider the following scenario: It is the middle of the night, an armed intruder breaks into a home in a well-lit residential neighborhood; the intruder knows the home owners are home, and despite this knowledge, illegally enters the home. The father, awakened by the noise, listens for a second and realizes that someone has broken into his home. Concerned for the safety of his family, the first thing the father does is dart straight for his shotgun, and checks the bedrooms of his children. Assured that his children are safe the father proceeds to the common areas of the residence and spots the intruder in the living room.

Through the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court sets their first precedent concerning the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual’s right to possess firearms for self-defense by establishing the individual right of gun ownership for lawful purposes. The Court grants this interpretation of the Second Amendment after the U.S. Circuit Courts have set a six decade precedent of rejecting challenges to federal regulation of firearms with few exceptions under the United States v. Miller (1939) decision. Fox News Channel’s senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, writing in defense of this decision, states that self-defense using firearms is a natural right enshrined by the Second Amendment, and that historical precedents of using guns to successfully defend against tyrants justify the current need for guns, not only for recreational activities such as hunting deer, but also for weapons with sufficient power to defend against enemies with equal effectiveness. Furthermore, supporters interpret the Second Amendment to apply to the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. However, based on the preamble to the Amendment, historical context, and the precedent case United States v. Miller, the Second Amendment intends to protect the right of people in a militia to keep and bear arms and does not preclude federal restriction of individual firearm ownership, especially considering the changes to the structure of the American militia and military

The 2nd amendment in the constitution says; 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. And people often debate about what this means. I believe that the 2nd amendment of the constitution is stating that people have the right to bear arms, providing they are part of the militia. I think this for 3 reasons, the first reason being the definition of the word militia, the second reason is what we use our militia for in the U.S, and the third is when we would need a militia at this point in time.

To begin this essay, I will state that I believe that the second amendment is truly beneficial to making money in the U.S. economy.

“Land of the free, but home to the controversial”. That does not sound like the typical phase our country is coined for. Well it is not. It is more of a phrase I used to describe my dear, beloved country. I say “controversial” because of the most recent issue that not only my home state is facing but others as well; the Second Amendment, “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”(Constitution). As we all know this amendment has been written and ratified more than a century ago. Yet now the amendment has sparked a great deal of disagreements.

On Sunday, September 3, two men were arrested for shooting two police officers in the legs and face. The officers were rushed to a nearby hospital. They were soon identified as one man (24) and one woman (22). There names have not been leaked to the press. The officers approached the two shooters who were identified as two suspects for a shooting in a nearby rural area. In the shooting, bullets were shot through the walls of the house at a woman and a baby. Tamara Collier (24) was shot through the neck with what appears to be an assault rifle. She is still in the hospital in condition critical. The baby was found on the ground, thankfully

What is the Second Amendment and why is it useful? The Second Amendment is the right to form a Militia in the state and the right for the people to keep and bear arms (Ryan 2008). This was more important when the 13 colonies were starting to set into play. By creating their own army groups to protect their county. But this has gotten worse over the years. The dead of people being shot changed “the places change(d): nine in a church, 26 in an elementary school, 49 in a nightclub, 58 at a country music festival” (WP Company). This shows the amount of deaths that have happened in just a short amount of time. There are always major shooting that have occurred so much in the past years and as the years continue they just get worse. The number of deaths increased, therefore the second amendment should be amended by adding more regulations for it to become safer in the U.S.

The First Amendment paved the way for citizens of the United States to have their own protection and rights from the government. It exemplified the freedom of speech, press, and religion. During this period that was very important to the citizens to have this as they lived their daily lives. In today’s technological world the first amendment seems to have taken a new form that some agree and disagree with. I personally believe that the freedoms written in that time, precisely freedom of the press, are being taken advantage of in today’s society and needs to be modified or repressed.

Do you agree with gun control? The second amendment and gun control has always been a special and talkative topic in United states. Left and right incidents happen and there is always someone arguing that we should have gun control. I personally and 100% disagree with gun control. Although the choice is yours I bet you will agree with me after reading my essay. Lets dive into the world of politics.