The Context of The Second Amendment The interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has been a topic of controversy since its acceptance over two-hundred years ago. This controversy stems from the fact that the amendment was written for reasons for the most part that do not have any relevance today. One side argues the amendment void, and the other takes it out of historical context so it portrays the meaning they want. To understand what the second Amendment means, one must interpret the actual text, the historical background for its adoption, and what it means today. “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” (Nesbit, 309).
When the new Constitution was drafted, the ratification, the official approval by the people of the United States, sparked a national debate. People were shocked by the radical changes it proposed; they expected the convention to merely amend the Articles of Confederation. They were afraid of regressing back into a state under tyranny, a form of rule where a single or small group reigns with vast or absolute power. Americans had just fought for their freedom from the tyrannical rule of the king of England. All their efforts and revolutionary ideas would have gone to waste.
The notion that the militia refused to enforce an unjust law or took up arms against the government became the most important ideas in mental political confusion of the Revolutionary era. The consequence of the rebellion had influenced the content of the Constitution. Although the rebellion collapsed so quickly, it had an important effect on American constitutional development that motivated to reform the Articles of Confederation. (p.33-36) Following in the tradition of Shays, the Whiskey Rebellion in which farmers took up arms against the whiskey excise tax in western Pennsylvania believe that the people might bear arms to defend liberty. The tax protest had become an armed rebellion and Washington had to lead federal and state militia to put down.
When our nation was young the founders came together to draft a new Constitution and form a republican government. Many had come to realize that the Articles of Confederation were flawed and the founders sought to find a solution. The new Constitution was accepted by the people on the premises that a bill of rights would be put in place to insure the natural rights of the people and of the states. One of these rights is explained in the Second Amendment to the Constitution as the right to a militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In recent years this right has come under scrutiny and attack from those who oppose this freedom.
When our nation was young, the founders came together to draft a new Constitution and form a republican government. Many had come to realize that the Articles of Confederation were flawed and the founders sought to find a solution. The new Constitution was accepted by the people on the premise that a bill of rights would be put in place to insure the natural rights of the people and of the states. One of these rights is explained in the Second Amendment of the Constitution as the right to a militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In recent years, this right has come under scrutiny and attack from those who oppose this freedom.
Distrust of Democracy “A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take away everything you have” (Democracy Quotes). Years ago, Thomas Jefferson was among many who, during drafting and ratification of the constitution, voiced their wariness over the creation of a strong national government. Professor I.M. Skeptic argues that the constitution was born out of a distrust of democracy. I do believe that the constitution was created out of distrust; however I believe this distrust is for a strong central government that was displayed through Britain 's monarchy, not of democracy.
In taking this power away from the states and placing it in their own hands, the Constitution created by the delegates goes against what a republic is when representatives no longer represent what they are appointed to. Clinton argues, that because the delegates took power into their own hands, the Constitution was created tainted and should be opposed. The delegates made the Constitution with their own self-interest in mind. The delegates took the job that was to be done by Congress and created a new government. The delegates created a tainted document when they took power away from the states and congress.
It was then that the leaders of the nation decided to write a central constitution, which would be followed by all states. This is when the power struggle began. While some states agreed to the proposal, several states completely rejected it and others were indecisive as to what would be the right thing to do. There were so many issues that arose that the individual states urged the people to reject the idea of a central government, because it would, purportedly, create undue interference in a state's internal matters. The people who opposed the proposal were known as Anti-federalists.
But after this government was put to use, it was evident that it was not going to keep peace between the states. The conflicts got so frequent and malicious that George Washington wondered if the “United” States should be called a Union (Patterson 35). Shays’ Rebellion finally made it evident to the public that the government needed a change. A group of men with political power and status, an elite by definition, got together and decided the solution to the problem of government was to have a group of men evaluate the Articles and make the proper changes. At least, this was what Congress thought the purpose of the Constitutional Convention was when they approved it (Patterson 37).
What our Founding Fathers could not foresee is that in our 21st century, The Freedom of Speech not only gives a person such a massive power, but also an opinion even if it is immoral and goes against citizens’ values. Thesis statement The First Amendment is the right that has been belonging to people since the birth. When we think about freedom of speech, we tend to remember the protester who expressed his opinion through burning the United States flag or about journalists who exposed a corrupt official. But now the trend is to use the First Amendment to release hatred and worshiping mindsets that go against society’s values and morals. Background, History In the United States of America, the First Amendment is one of the things that distinguishes us from any other nations.