The Context Of The Second Amendment
opinionated Essay
1036 words
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). What many people see when they read this is, ‘the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed'. One can say that it
clearly states that the people do have a right to have firearms. Who are ‘the
people'? Some argue that the people are just what it says, citizens. “[M]any
legal historians have concluded that the right is corporate rather that
individual”(Hook, 30). Meaning that the right is giving to the state government
not to individual citizens. Others argue that it does give people the right to
bear arms, but only if you belong to a certain group.
This group is defined by the beginning preamble to the Second Amendment,
‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State'.
This preamble is set out to regulate the other half of the Amendment. What is a
militia? “[A] militia is a body of men enrolled for military service, and
called out periodically for drill and exercises, but serving full time only in
emergency”(Hook, 25). This is talking about a State sponsored militia that is
well-regulated. Since there are no State Militias do the people have any right
to bear Arms? According to this amendment it is up to the State to decide that.
This whole Amendment is guarantee's the state the right to have a well-regulated
militia in which the people can bear arms.
“[T]he individuals right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or
efficiency of a well-regulated [state] militia. Except for lawful police and
military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not
constitutionally p...
... middle of paper ...
...as viewed as a
traditional privilege lying outside the Constitution...”(Hook, 30). Having a
firearm at that time was so common that they did not even think about having to
legalize it. Today, is a different story. With more and more regulations on
firearms being passed, the Second Amendment is the only thing groups like the
NRA have to hold on to. Both sides need to sit down and find a solution to this
gun-control debate. Or one day this Amendment will be interpreted at face value
and fire arms in citizens hands will be a thing of the past, unless of course it
is in a state sponsored militia.
As time goes on the controversy of the Second Amendment increases. When
examined by the actual text, the historical background, and how it applies today,
the Second Amendment has little if any relevance for modern society. Groups
like the NRA and ACLU need to work together to find a solution to this gun-
control debate so in the end both groups are satisfied with the results.
Sources
Nesbit, Lee. Gun Control Debate: You Decide. New York: Prometheus Books,
1990.
Hook, Donald. Gun Control: The Continuing Debate. Washington: The Second
Amendment Foundation, 1992.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that this preamble is set out to regulate the other half of the amendment.
- Explains that it is up to the state to decide whether to bear arms.
- Opines that one cannot only look at the text to understand the true meaning of the second.
- Explains that they saw a man corrupted by power and using his power to do evil.
- Explains why they set up our political system with many checks and balances so that one could vote.
- Explains that one man in control could turn out to be a tyrant. they feared this.
- Opines that militias are the only safe form of military power that a popular goverment can have.
- Opines that congress at that time did not even feel it necessary to put a bill in place.
- Opines that the horse's right to ride was not questioned, for it was viewed as a right.
- Explains that firearms were so common at that time that they didn't even think about having to.
- Opines that both sides need to sit down and find a solution to this issue.
- Opines that fire arms in citizens' hands will be a thing of the past, unless of course it is.
- Opines that the nra and aclu need to work together to find a solution to this gun issue.
- States that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Related
- analytical
- opinionated
- explanatory
- Gun Ownership and the Second Amendment of the Constitutionanalytical essayGun Ownership and the Second Amendment Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue "settled law." For this reason, the gun lobby does not fight for its perceived constitutional right to keep and bear arms before the Supreme Court, but in Congress. Interestingly, even interpreting an individual right in the 2nd Amendment presents the gun lobby with some thorny problems, like the right to keep and bear nuclear weapons. 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.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how the supreme court has always ruled that the 2nd amendment protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection does not extend to individuals.
- Explains that the second amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms. pro-gun advocates claim that gun control laws are a violation of their constitutional rights.
- Asks why the national rifle association doesn't challenge gun control laws on constitutional grounds before the supreme court?
- Opines that the nra is fighting for its perceived constitutional rights on capital hill, by bribing our legislators with millions of dollars in campaign contributions.
- Explains the supreme court's ruling that the second amendment does not extend the right to keep and bear arms to individuals, but to well-regulated militias mentioned in the first part of the amendment.
- Describes the duties of the militia, including organizing, arming and disciplining them, and reserving to the states respective the appointment of officers and ity of training them according to discipline prescribed by congress.
- Explains that the founders were passionately opposed to standing peacetime armies and created a system whereby citizens kept their arms at home and could be called by their state militias.
- Explains that the second amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms.
- Explains how the supreme court addressed this issue in united states vs. miller in 1939. the court refused to strike down a law prohibiting interstate commerce of sawed-off shotgun on the basis of the second amendment.
- Explains that the federal government is free to regulate and ban guns as long as it does not interfere with the state's ability to run a militia. since then, both the supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms.
- Explains that the sixth circuit court of appeals in 1976 upheld the conviction of an illegal gun-owner who argued that his second amendment rights had been violated.
- Quotes justice william o. douglas as saying gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the second amendment. there is no reason why all pistols should be barred to everyone except the police.
- Argues that gun advocates have a different "plain meaning" of the constitution than everyone else, one that coincidentally legalizes their desired goal of owning weapons
- Opines that the only recourse for gun advocates is to reject the system of judicial review that has led to a perfect record of court defeats. the alternative is even worse: trusting congress to pass laws that respect our constitutional rights.
- Argues that even accepting the gun lobby's interpretation of the second amendment doesn't spare gun owners from gun control.
- Opines that prohibition of nuclear weapons is a violation of the second amendment. pro-gun advocates call this the "nuclear straw-man argument."
- Argues that pro-gun advocates admit that a literalist interpretation allows the right to keep and bear all arms, including nuclear weapons, and that this is surely archaic.
- Argues that the rationale of an individual right to keep and bear arms is to defend against a tyrannical government, but to surrender an advantage as overwhelming as nuclear weapons and smart weaponry to the government is irrational.
- Analyzes how the argument is strange because it concedes a point to gun control, namely, that there are some weapons so deadly that they shouldn't be allowed in society.
- Analyzes how the gun lobby fervently hopes to avoid public mobilization on a constitutional amendment limiting the right to keep and bear arms. a huge majority of americans favor stricter gun control laws.
- Opines that a constitutional amendment banning nuclear weapons is moot. individuals don't even have the right to keep and bear firearms, much less modern military weapons.
1611 wordsRead More - The Second Amendment - The Right To Bear Armsanalytical essayThe Second Amendment And The Right To Bear Arms Throughout the years there has been an ongoing debate over the Second Amendment and how it should be interpreted. The issue that is being debated is whether our government has the right to regulate guns. The answer of who has which rights lies within how one interprets the Second Amendment. With this being the case, one must also think about what circumstances the Framers were under when this Amendment was written.
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes the debate over the second amendment and how it should be interpreted. the collective side is in favor of stricter gun control laws.
- Argues that the second amendment guarantees a collective right rather than an individual right. they advocate restrictions on some types of firearms by citing high numbers of gun-related deaths.
- Opines that as the debate over slavery gradually changed from being constitutional to unconstitutional, the political culture on gun control will change.
- Explains robert dowlut's the right to keep and bear arms in state bills of rights and judicial
- States that hickok, eugene jr., ed. the bill of rights: original meaning and current understanding.
- Argues that the second amendment's militia clause guarantees nothing to the individual and only protects the states' rights to maintain organized military units.
- Argues that the second amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to fire arms.
2184 wordsRead More - Liberals LOVE Gun Controlopinionated essayState, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
In this essay, the author
- Asks, are we not the world's most heavily armed population?
- Opines that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
- Describes the requirements for being allowed to possess a gun, or to wait for mandatory periods of time before obtaining it.
- Opines that the inner-city slums of the united states are only part of a larger story.
- Explains that cities often ask where the slums are, but there really aren't any.
- Opines that they were aware of the possibility that there might once again come a time.
- Describes what would happen in a nation with guns in every house.
- Opines that the u.s. can only envy their low crime rate.
- Describes the police and sheriffs of a city in the county, where the applicant lives.
- Opines that it is not obvious that when more citizens are armed there is less incidence of gun violence.
- Opines that we do not need more laws that restrict the ability and the right of honest women.
- Opines that gun laws will not keep guns out of retail gun stores.
- Opines that the only thing congress should rush is the adoption of gun-control laws.
1123 wordsRead More - The National Rifle Association (NRA)explanatory essayThe National Rifle Association (NRA), recognized today as a major political force and as America's foremost defender of 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.” The NRA adheres to the belief that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms. Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases have confirmed those beliefs. In spite of whether one personally adheres to these interpretations of the amendment or not, the fact is there are over two hundred million guns in this country. Moreover, there are over seventy-five million firearm owners. In addition to the NRA’s political activity for second amendment rights, it has fulfilled a service, as since its inception, it had been the premier firearms education organization in the world by providing firearms safety and training.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that the national rifle association is america's foremost defender of the second amendment, which guarantees the right of individuals to bear arms.
- Describes the nra as a non-profit organization with more republican members than democrat members. it endorses candidates from either party as long as the candidate supports its pro=gun position.
- Explains that the nra commenced promoting shooting sports to american youth by establishing rifle clubs at major colleges, universities, and military academies.
- Explains that the nra has implemented and continues to implement programs of public benefit.
- Explains that the nra lobbied strongly for right-to-carry laws, and its lobbying efforts resulted in forty-nine of the fifty states now having a concealed carry permit.
793 wordsRead More - Michael Moore's Suggested Changes To The Second Amendmentanalytical essay“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 this essay, the author
- Analyzes how documentary filmmaker michael moore has taken it upon himself to offer americans the specifics related to his desire to repeal and then'rewrite' the second amendment.
- Opines that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state. the right to keep and bear arms is not infringed.
- Opines that a well-regulated state national guard is helpful to the safety and security of the state in times of need, along with the strictly regulated right of people to keep and bear limited number of non-automatic arms for sport and hunting.
- Explains that moore's statistics may have been taken from shannan catalano’s 2010 special report: national crime victimization survey.
- Argues that requiring smart guns will eliminate much of the crime we experience because 80 percent of crimes in america are perpetrated using a stolen gun.
673 wordsRead More - The Controversy of the Second Amendment of the Constitutionanalytical essayI. INTRODUCTION: The Second Amendment to the Constitution(Second Amendment) of the United States of America(USA) is one of the most controversial. The Second Amendment specifically grants that, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" The way that an individual interprets the wording of the Second Amendment influences their point of view on who has the right to "keep and bear arms" (Amendment 2). The controversy brought on by the Second Amendment is because the Second Amendment does not clearly define whom "the people" are.
In this essay, the author
- Argues that the struggle to liberally interpret, or strictly limit, the rights granted by the second amendment seems certain to continue.
- Analyzes the controversy brought on by the second amendment because it does not clearly define who "the people" are. gun-control advocates argue that individuals should lose their rights to own a gun.
- Explains that anti-gun control activists interpret the second amendment as saying that any individual, whether in the military or not, should be allowed to own firearms.
- Explains that gun control activists believe that ordinary law abiding citizens owning guns makes the country unsafe for everyone, especially children. they cite the recent rise in shootings occurring in schools as an example of why guns should not be kept in the home.
- Explains that many individuals will go to great lengths to preserve the right to keep and bear arms. many small contributions can make a big difference in whether or not gun control laws are passed defeated or vetoed.
997 wordsRead More - Right To Bear Arms Essayopinionated essayThe Second Amendment clearly states 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. Don’t take away the right to bear arms.
In this essay, the author
- Opines that everyone should have the right to bear arms, and have gun control. gun control is a hot topic facing our world right now.
- States that the second amendment clearly states well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed on the right to bear arms.
- Explains that americans can misuse the right to bear arms, and use it inappropriately, such as pinning someone down to rob a bank or the charleston church shooting.
- Opines that americans should have the right to bear arms for self-defense, and inversely, to protect oneself by avoiding arms. killing animals for meat is the only way most americans can provide for their families.
- Argues that americans should have the right to bear arms for two reasons, self-defense reasons — they need guns because they can keep them pinned down until cops show up.
- Opines that 54-70% of americans support the idea of gun control, while 51% of male americans and 72% of female americans ruled in favor of strict gun controls.
- Explains that females rule in favor of stricter gun control, while males ruled against less strict gun controls. sports and self-defense are legitimate uses of guns.
- Argues that americans shouldn't be given the right to bear arms. drive by shootings affect everyone except the person who is doing the shooting.
- Explains that threats, robbery, and untrained gun use can harm innocent people in this world. they also recommend background checks for every american wanting to buy and own a gun.
- Explains how the armed robbery at the at&t store killed former haysville middle school counselor julie dombo, who is still in critical condition.
- Describes the charleston shooting, which happened on june 17th 2015, where nine people were shot by a 21-year-old suspect at emanuel african methodist episcopal church in charleston, south carolina.
- Explains that sandy hook killed 20 students between the ages of six and seven, six teachers were killed just to save lives of their students, and combine high school killed 13 lives.
- Explains why americans do background checks because most americans won't be upfront with their past.
- Opines that background checks should be allowed for everything, especially, for selling guns. for those who want to make their own gun, there should a background check to buy parts for the gun itself.
- Concludes that everyone should have the right to bear arms. this can protect americans from the good and evil of people. gun control has an effect on people good or bad.
1238 wordsRead More - Stricter Gun Laws Research Paperopinionated essayGuns are our right to own, use, and buy. “A well regulated Militia...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
In this essay, the author
- Opines that americans should not have stricter gun laws. stronger laws take power away from law-abiding citizens and give more power to criminals.
- Opines that guns are our right to own, use, and buy. without guns, we can't form a well-regulated militia.
220 wordsRead More - Second Amendment Rights Argumentative Analysisopinionated essayNatural rights are the biggest thing that makes Americans who they are. The difference between this country, and a country such as North Korea is that the American people are free in the majority of aspects of their life. The desire for government to protect the people’s rights and have their best interest in mind was one of the driving factors that caused the colonies to break away from England in the first place. Taking that into account is beneficial in understanding the debate over Second Amendment rights. Many Americans are wary about any change that would involve the government taking away their precious rights and becoming any more powerful than they already are. Others argue that reformation is necessary to ensure the safety of the
In this essay, the author
- Explains that natural rights are the biggest thing that makes americans who they are. the desire for government to protect the people's rights was one of the driving factors that caused the colonies to break away from england in the first place.
- Explains that the second amendment of the constitution details the american people's rights to possess guns. the national rifle association says that individual’s right to bear arms should be protected.
- Argues that the second amendment has been largely misinterpreted over the years.
- Opines that the second amendment needs to be reformed because of mass shootings. passing legislation that takes away guns from law-abiding citizens is not the answer.
- Opines that americans need to come together and reach a compromise that would keep the society safe and put an end to the constant streams of mass shootings, homicide and other senseless acts of gun violence.
926 wordsRead More - Paperanalytical essayProponents of gun control might answer that the right to bear arms hinges on the establishment of a state militia. However, the historical and legal context in which the document was written must be considered in order to understand the amendment. Follo...
In this essay, the author
- Explains that mercer's policy prohibits students from bringing weapons that range from hunting weapons to bb guns, paintball guns to bowie knives.
- Analyzes how the second amendment addresses tyrannical or oppressive actions that bring harm to the individual regardless of the agressor.
- Explains that the second amendment supports the natural right of self-defense, a right which mercerians may want to express more regularly. macon is safer than only 2 percent of cities in the united states.
- Explains that according to western tradition and the us constitution, we have a right to self-defense and bear arms. locke stressed the natural rights of life, liberty, and property.
- Argues that by allowing individuals with concealed carry permits to have their weapons on campus, you are not arming every single individual. guns would not appear in mass quantities and individuals wouldn't be aware of their presence.
- Argues that the "alcohol and firearms don't mix" argument should not exist as mercer is supposed to be a dry campus.
592 wordsRead More