The Issue Of The Second Amendment

The gun debate in the United States widely revolves around the intended interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those who support gun rights claim that the founding fathers developed and subsequently ratified the Second Amendment to guarantee the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Those who want more stringent gun laws feel that the founding fathers directed this Amendment solely to the formation of militias and are thus, outdated.

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

Although the 2nd Amendment only contains one sentence, the interpretation of it can be misconstrued if the use of critical thought is not applied during the analysis. Supporters of gun control argue that the ambiguous language in the 2nd Amendment leads to confusion about the interpretation. That in itself warrants further discussion about rewriting the 2nd Amendment or simply eradicating it. Also, the provision is outdated and no longer coincides with the times. In regards to the addition of “well regulated militia,” guns were meant to protect people from tyranny and any form of militarized government suppression. With that said, firearms should alternatively be restricted from other uses with

The second 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 United States Constitution). Most gun

“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.

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.

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.

The second amendment of the constitution 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.” (Cornell Law) For over fifty years, the amendment has been interpreted to the courts that people individually do not have the right to own gun, but rather that this right is to be regulated by legislatives on the federal,

I feel that James Madison’s original version of the Second Amendment proved that the intent was for the people to have the right to keep and bear arms under the United States Constitution. I feel that when the version was changed it opened the door for misinterpretation.

The first Part of the second amendment deals with the militias. The States and community had militias who defended there community and state from Indian raids and revolts. They could be called on to defend the state in a time of crisis. Men who were between 16-60 were required to be part of their local militia. Almost every man during the time of militias in America had guns and for the few who didn't have guns had to pay a small fee. The second part deals with "bear arms". Bear arms means you have some sort of weapon on you like a gun or taser. The second amendment does not explain what types of arms or what weapons were considered arms. But back then guns were as big as a problem today.

The right to bear arms is interpreted different among two groups: gun advocates and gun control advocates. Gun advocates believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees their right to gun ownership, and any legislative body who tries to prohibit such would be in direct violation of this amendment. On the other hand, gun control interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean that legislative bodies should be able to prohibit citizens from owning or purchasing firearms and the right to bear arms applied only when the use of militias was relevant. “Time and again, the pro- and anti-gun factions of American society have appealed to the Supreme Court, the last judge of the law, for a resolution of their differences.” (). Also, the Supreme Court, along with local governments, have interpreted the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has stated citizens did not have the inherent right to bear arms, a total ban on a type of firearms was unconstitutional, and the regulation of individual firearms and restriction of firearm privileges on criminals, handicapped, and mentally disabled were subjected to the State. “The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, … and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons,”().

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. The idea behind the second amendment was a simple one, if you take guns away from the people then if you have a dictator then you can protect yourself against them. If you look at history most major dictators have taken guns away from the people. This is why the second amendment was so important to our founding fathers, because it would make it so the government could become authoritarian on its people and turn the country into a police state. The words “shall not be infringed” are very important, it signifies that no one, not even the federal government has the right

The Constitution was signed on September 17, 1789. The federalists declared that the Constitution granted the new government limited powers. Anti-federalists, such as George Mason, sought after a stronger confirmation from the federal government that certain rights would not be encroached upon. After just recently breaking away from Great Britain, it is understandable that the Founding Fathers feared the rise of another domineering government. Mason wrote, “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state.” If the government had the jurisdiction over citizen’s right to use firearms, then it could disarm them as the British had once done. This led to the creation of the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, which 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.” Fast forward to present day; our nation is currently in the core of a large controversy over gun control laws and the meaning of the Second Amendment.

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

Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear