The Second Amendment And The Right To Bear Arms Critical Analysis

In America guns have been a part of the country’s society since it’s birth. Throughout history the citizens of the US have used firearms to protect the nation, protect their families, hunt for food and engage in sporting activities. The issue of Guns and gun control is complex. Weighing the rights and liberties of the individual against the welfare and safety of the public has always been a precarious balancing act. In the United States, gun control is one of these tumultuous issues that has both sides firmly entrenched in their positions. Those parties in favor of gun ownership and the freedom to use and keep arms, rely on the fact that the provision for such rights is enshrined in their constitution. In this climate of

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gun laws feel that the founding fathers directed this Amendment solely to the formation of militias and are thus, outdated.

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.

​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

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.

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).

The debate over gun control has been raging through the American political systems for years. On one side, there is the National Rifle Association (NRA) and 2nd Amendment-citing citizens who use their firearms for hunting and self-defense. On the other, there is Handgun Control Inc. (HCI) and followers of the Brady Campaign who want to ban guns on the basis that they are dangerous. Both sides have strong arguments, anchored in historical precedent and statistical analysis. Anti-gun control lobbyists’ arguments include the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment, the definition of “militia” as any adult male, self-defense, the relative uselessness of permits and regulations, and court cases in favor of firearm possession. Pro-gun control activists

The Second Amendment to the Constitution gave United States citizens the right to bear arms. Although, the Second Amendment stated: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. However, the framers could not foresee the type of violence we have in our cities today. Innocent citizens have and are being brutally killed due to this amendment. Stricter gun control laws must be enacted to receive these types of weapons.

When America first became a country branching away from Great Britain, firearms played a huge role. After the war, firearms were still an every day thing for civilians, using them for hunting and or self-defense. With the second amendment has come with a controversial topic when it comes to regulating guns in our country. This topic affects the United States nationally, as well as local state to state as they try to regulate how guns should be handled. From the core amendment values such as the second amendment have changed how the amendment is viewed overtime, so has the evolution of guns and how they are viewed in today’s society.

Guns are one of the most controversial and debated-upon topics in America today. In the Constitution, Americans are given “the right to bear arms,” and many Americans are proud of and believe strongly in that right. Though, that right has been constantly misused. Homicides by gun are at a higher rate in the United States than any other country in the world, mass shootings are at an all time high (many of which have occurred in the past two years alone), and terrorism has been at an all-time high. So, naturally, it is a topic that needs to be discussed. In the articles Change Your Gun Laws, America (1), author Fareed Zakaria provides the readers with some harrowing statistics on guns and insight over how the U.S. laws on guns need to be managed.

The continuing Mass Shootings in the United States has caused the gun control debate to intensify. While anti-gun control advocates say the Second Amendment guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, the pro-gun control group reads the Second Amendment as a collective right to bear arms; meaning organized militia are the only ones with that right. This essay will analyse the effectiveness of several different articles which present arguments for and against gun control.

US gun control: What is the NRA and why is it so powerful? (2016, January 08). Retrieved May

Gun control has a history dating back to 1791, when the Second Amendment of the Constitution was ratified. However, more recently, the debate over gun control has escalated into a much more public issue to which many citizens can relate. After all, stories about incidents involving guns appear frequently today in newspapers and on television or the radio. One could say that the debate started with the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned ownership of guns by certain groups of people and regulated the sale of guns. Since then, two main groups have gradually appeared: people who oppose strict federal

In recent years, open carry of handguns has become the controversial issue in America since the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and in McDonald v. City of Chicago advocated protecting the Second Amendment (MELTZER). More and more states have allowed certain forms of open carry law for handguns, but Texas is one of few states that prohibit outright any open carry of guns (GRIEDER). The Second Amendment of the United States 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.” The people who support the open carry law point out that bans on gun are against the Second Amendment, which established the right for every citizen to keep and bear arms. The National Rifle Association (NRA), the powerful lobby against gun control, believes that human will still use their gun responsibly if there is no law (National Rifle…); however, the people who do not support open carry argue that gun control can decrease the risk of crime and also stop the potential to serial shooters to occur. Since gun control has become a controversial issue in American politics, people might wonder the Second Amendment is about individual or collective right? However, in the book by the author Saul Cornell, A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America, explained the historical evolution of guns right and the idea of individual

Imagine a world in which humans weren’t forced to stoop to a criminal’s level in order to feel safe, a world in which arguments were settled with words, and power came from the mind and not a weapon. Imagine a world without guns. Unfortunately in the United States, this world has become unattainable, but stricter legislation on handguns would bring this ideal world one step closer. The handgun statistics in America speak for themselves. After comparing America’s statistics to those in other countries with stricter handgun legislation, it becomes clear that something must be done to fix the broken American system. In America, guns are too readily available to the public and the result is an overwhelming amount of deaths. Under the current legislation, America is not only losing countless lives, but also a shocking amount of money. And so, as one study’s the true toll the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is taking on our country, one should stop and think if granting so liberally the right to bear arms is really in the best interest of the country.