The Second Amendment And The Amendment

“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

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

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.

Modern debates about the meaning of the Second Amendment have focused on whether it protects a right of individuals to keep and bear arms or, instead, a right of the states to maintain militia organizations like the National Guard. This question, however, was apparently never even discussed for a long time after the Bill of Rights was framed. The early discussions took the basic meaning of the amendment largely for granted and focused instead on whether it actually added anything significant to the original Constitution. The debate has shifted primarily because of subsequent developments in the Constitution and in constitutional law.

In recent years, there have been many stories of shootings taken place across various parts of the United States, all of which bring up the highly volatile topic of gun control. Unlike many other wealthy countries, such as the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and Australia, where gun ownership is strictly regulated, by in large-the US has very little universal gun control laws throughout the nation. This great controversy is based on the Constitutional right of the Second Amendment, stating, “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.” Though this is a Constitutional right, unlike many other Amendments, understanding they were written in

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution peruses: "A very much managed Militia, being important to the security of a free State, the privilege of the individuals to keep and remain battle ready, might not be encroached." Such dialect has made extensive open deliberation in regards to the Amendment's planned degree. From one perspective, some accept that the Amendment's expression "the privilege of the individuals to keep and remain battle ready" makes an individual established a good fit for nationals of the United States. Under this "individual right hypothesis," the United States Constitution limits authoritative bodies from denying gun ownership, or at any rate, the Amendment renders prohibitory and prohibitive regulation hypothetically

In addition, this theory essentially is expressing that the United States citizens have the right to own and convey firearms to help protect themselves or their property (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). In contrast, the states’ rights view on the seconded amendment may be considered, by most, to be a more scholarly perspective on the matter. To better elaborate, many scholars believe that the framers only intended for the seconded amendment to apply to ‘a well regulated Militia’ (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). Meaning that, this amendment was only instituted in place to help the states act in self-defense against outside innovators (Cornell University Law School,

In this section the author talks about the Second Amendment how it is strangely phrased and for most of American history, its meaning was thought to be somewhat murky. “A well-regulated militia composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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.” The constitution is clearly saying all citizens have the right to be able to own and carry a weapon or firearm. On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the United States Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves (Cornell 1). This is showing how our founding fathers supported the right to bear arms.

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

The amendments give citizens of the United States a plethora of their rights. Amendment II, for example, 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,” (Lund and Winkler). In other words, Amendment II gives American Citizens their right to have weapons in their home, but it does have limitations. When categorizing the evidence presented about the second amendment, one can analyze the foundation, violations, and uses then and now.

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, in 1791, stated “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 controversy soon started on who, what, and how the founding fathers bestowed these rights. Who should be allowed to carry arms? What type of arms should be allowed to bear? How can the people obtain these arms? All of these questions have been debated, discussed, and argued by both sides of the controversy.

The second Amendment is brought up a lot when we talk about gun violence and domestic terrorism. It 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.” This brings the polarizing discourse on the topic of guns. The argument is whether this amendment was made to protect individual rights to bear arms or was it a right only to be used by military organizations. This leads to the dispute of allowing guns to be so easily accessible to the public versus prohibiting or nullifying the accessibility of guns in America.

A major issue that is spreading like wildfire lately is the right to bear arms. This Second Amendment enshrined by the Constitution proclaims: “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” (“Right to Bear Arms”). Many people have the argument that the Second Amendment provides individuals the right to own guns, others say that this amendment was set to apply to states’ rights, rather than individual rights. One side claims violence while the other side states protection and legal right.