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

The first speaker, Dr. Khal Schneider, addresses the words behind the 2nd amendment. He provides us with a historical background around the formation of the amendment and further describes the works that are within this amendment. He highlights words such as “Militia”, “necessary”, “arms”, and “infringed”. He describes how these words can be interpreted differently, thus making it hard to actually interpret the amendment for what it actually means. For instance, he draws attention to the word “arms” and describes the evolution. He illustrates that his amendment must be looked at in respects to the century it was written in. He then describes the difference between “arms’ within both centuries. He draws attention to the increase

Mass shootings are increasing in the United States, and gun control advocates are seizing the opportunity to push anti-gun legislation to deter gun violence in America. Guns and the Second Amendment have come to the forefront of political rhetoric, leading to conflicting views between lawmakers on the future of gun legislation. Republican lawmakers are encouraging law abiding citizens to acquire firearms and to defend themselves against acts of violence by criminals. On the contrary, Democratic lawmakers believe the only way to slow gun violence in the United States is to remove guns from society. While certain politicians believe strict gun laws would protect the American people, the proposed policies would make our nation more vulnerable

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 Also, the provision is outdated and no longer coincides with the times.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

“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.

​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).

In the Constitution, the second amendment gives the American people to have the right to possess and bear arms. This amendment has been the most controversial issue since guns have been around. Issues such as gun control and gun ownership have remained a matter of debate and have been floating around in Congress. It has been rumored that Congress is forced to draft certain legislation in order to come up with a law against unlawful use of arms, and only owning them for safety purposes. When it comes to congress, Republicans and Democrats have debated their views on gun-control in the United States to best fit the overall well-being of the citizens. These different points of views have caused many discussions on how this controversial topic should be handled and whether or not it conflicts with the second amendment. Throughout this topic, Republicans and hardcore NRA supporters favor with less strict rules of gun-control while Democrats want stricter rules such as a background check for every citizen that poses a threat to either the United States of America or the average citizen. The debate on guns in America has essentially become one more distracting, off-point topic in culture wars.

The argument that has lasted for centuries begins with the first part “A well regulated militia”. Over the years, many of the nation’s supreme courts have ruled in a lot of different ways. The definition of a well regulated militia means to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections

Many people believe that the Second Amendment means that only the military should have the right to carry guns. They believe that “A well-regulated militia” is referring to trained soldiers, when in fact, the Second

Whenever the Second Amendment is discussed, gun control is usually the focus of the discussion due to the connections that gun control and the Second Amendment have. Although the Second Amendment protects the individual right to firearms, the unlimited right is not. America was founded through guns, using their own arms to fight the British in order to gain independence, making it natural for America to be heavily focused on guns. However, many people have abused the weapon, making the controversial topic of gun control a reality.

In Molly Ivins op-ed “Get a Knife, get a Gun, but Get Rid of Guns,” she examines the true meaning behind the second amendment as well as its relevancy in the present United States. Ivins interprets the second amendment as it is written in which the only group with the freedom to bear arms are well-regulated militias (Ivins 384). Though Ivins only evidence throughout her piece is the clear definition of the second amendment, the simplicity of it only adds to the satire in which she is writing. Ivins could easily incorporate court cases and legal documentation better defining the true meaning of the second amendment, but it is her choice to only include the definition in the original constitution. The evidence, or lack thereof, aids in the presentation

I am writing this letter in concern of the second amendment; discussing gun laws. The Bill of Rights states that, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Gun violence unfortunately has become timeless and is at an all-time high in America. Many people take advantage of guns using and manipulating the tool with hardly any thought. Countless lives have been lost due to fact that people have been able to obtain firearms legally or illegally and have taken the notion to be judge, jury and executioner in holding ones live in their hands. This is a common issue that will continue if action is not taken as a nation to try and stop it. Gun violence can lead many citizens to believe that no place is deemed safe anymore and recent tragedies that have taken place in United States holds up that statement. In our society today, the shootings that continue to take place seem to become more gruesome and far more heinous, becoming more painful and unbearable to listen, watch, and hear these tragic stories appear on the news. The government, parents, and educators have now combined forces and are struggling to find a way forward towards dealing with the matter adequately. Back in the day, most people believed gun violence only took place in the inner cities, but currently the epidemic has reached the suburbs and rural America. This epidemic has hit grade schools, high schools, school’s yards of inner-city schools and college campuses. Most times school shootings make the national press while threats to schools are not reported on the news as much. However, this has happened partly because of the irresponsibility of the citizens. Furthermore, due to this amendment, many terrorist attacks have occurred, many people have accidently gotten injured, and school shootings have occurred.

There was an important article that was ratified on December 15, 1791. This document was the Second Amendment. The text represented in the amendment is as follows: “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)”. What does the term “bear arms” represent? There are two viewpoints about this vital subject. To many gun control activists, this term “bear arms” simply does not apply in the 21st century. These activists feel as if this phrase only applied at the time of its authorship in a time of militia. Meanwhile, there are individuals who feel that the Second Amendment endures the test of time and represents a right endowed by the founding