The Second Amendment : The Language Of The Gun And Gun Control

1379 Words6 Pages
The Second Amendment has become a sensitive topic of debate due to the differing perspectives people have about its usage. Due to the current society’s rise in violence, advocates of gun ownership argue that the Second Amendment allows citizens to “bear arms” and their right to owning them should not be taken away because it is attacking their freedom. On the other hand, opponents of gun ownership claim that militias are the only ones who need to be equipped with firearms. This perpetual dispute is the reason why the writers of the Second Amendment should have phrased the amendment in a clearer and coherent way. Till this day, the issue that remains unsolved is figuring out what the amendment is intended for and who is entitled under it. The language of the Second Amendment creates many discrepancies in the way people interpret it and as time is progressing, the Second Amendment is being used as a means for self-defense and due to that the utilization of guns is being regulated, not infringed.
The phrase a "well regulated Militia,” creates unclarity because the present day meaning of that phrase is in conflict with what the Framers intended because in today’s society it suggests strong government involvement and regulation. When the amendment was first drafted, a “well-regulated militia” did not refer to the fact that the militias were supposed to be monitored or controlled by the government. The Framers were already aware that the “well regulated” militias did not need to

More about The Second Amendment : The Language Of The Gun And Gun Control

Get Access