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.” 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 two primary positions presented on this issue are generally referred to as the “individual rights” and “states’ rights” positions (“Second”). The “individual rights” position posits that the amendment was written to secure private citizens’ personal right to own firearms as they see fit. This conclusion is generally concluded by looking at the rest of the Bill of Rights as well as many personal writings of the framers of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was originally written due to issues many states brought forth concerning the power of the federal government to restrict personal liberties. These ten amendments were meant to enshrine certain liberties into the constitution (“Bill”). Each amendment in the Bill of Rights exists to ensure individuals maintain freedoms deemed important enough to directly block the government from taking. The
Chrystine Archer National Government T&R 12:30 Essay #1 10/03/2017 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution I chose to write about the Second Amendment which is the right for people to keep and bear arms simply because it is one of the most controversial amendments we have. The concern behind it stems from the question “who are we really protecting, the people or the government?” In this essay I plan to explain the history behind it, also how and why is it so important to the US constitution today?
For more than two hundred years there was never a debate about the exact meaning of the second amendment. Most recently the arguments have become focused on if it protects a right of individuals to keep and bear arms or, is it a right of the states to maintain organized militias like the National Guard. The only mentions based on early debates even questioned if it added anything to the original Constitution (1). The thoughts evolved from being either a weapon was used to protect oneself or as a tool, which is indispensable in daily life and therefore as arbitrary as a kitchen knife in either argument. Today the debate has shifted due to subsequent developments in the evolution of Constitution law.
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.
The 2nd amendment of the constitution maybe one of the most infamous and controversial modification of the charter. The 2nd amendment protects a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms the law states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and shall not be infringed.” (“Second amendment” n.d.). The American Bar Association (“Bill of Rights” 1791) has stated that “there is more disagreement and less understanding about this right than of any other current issue regarding the Constitution. It is a confusing right and can be inferred in many ways and is interpreted accordingly with each case. The definition of the right to keep and bear arms is one of the most argued amendments in the constitution because some state the right refers to militia and their right of bearing arms to uphold and protect the security of a free nation when needed. While others believe the amendment gives each and every individual the right to keep and bear arms. However one construes the amendment, it has been a great topic of concern, argument and debate, ever since it has been ratified.
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.
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.
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,
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
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
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
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
“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 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 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.
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.