The Context Of The Second Amendment

1036 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The controversy of the second amendment

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.

Show More
Related

  • Analysis Of 'The Armed Citizen In The Early Republic' By Robert E. Shalhope

    1098 Words  | 3 Pages

    Cress argues that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized militia groups. However, it was clear that the Founding Fathers made no distinction between the militia and the people. The Second Amendment allows individuals to own guns and to be able to protect themselves. If the Founding Fathers wanted gun ownership to be for militias only, they would have specifically stated that in the Second Amendment. Cress ineffectively argues that the militias were an important part of protecting the people when in reality they were not well-trained and may not have been committed to the cause which rendered them ineffective. Therefore, Cress’ argument is not reflective of the attitudes of the Founding

    Read More

  • A Well Regulated Militia by Saul Cornell

    1491 Words  | 3 Pages

    United States is a country that has problems with gun control, and this issue has many debates between whether or not people should be allowed to carry a gun on them. This free county not only for speech and religion, but also allows people to have the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment of the United States was written by our Founding Fathers,“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” (Government). The main purpose of the Second Amendment when our Founding Fathers wrote this amendment was to help the American citizens to defend themselves from the government at that time, and other countries from invading their properties. However, the Second Amendment could be the opposite of what our Founding Fathers wanted it to be in the twenty-first century, because many criminals are taking advantage of the right to carry guns, which in example results with the purpose of showing off with their friends, revenge for their gang’s members, or try to be like their favorite hero in the movie they had watched. On July 20, 2012, a massive shooting occurred inside of a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The tragedy happened during a midnight screening of the film The Dark Knight Rises which killed twelve people and injuring seventy others. In response, this alarmed our government to rethink about the current gun control law in America. In A Well Regulated Militia by Saul Cornell, the author informed to his audience the different views of gun ownership in early America, which part was the most important part of the debate, how did slavery affect the debate over militias in the South, the Continental army officer’s views, and the arguments be...

    Read More

  • Exemplification Essay: Gun Control Not the Answer

    1409 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Second Amendment of the U.S. 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.

    Read More

  • Why Is The Second Amendment Important

    778 Words  | 2 Pages

    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.” This statement basically means that people should be able to own guns for their own security and that right should not be taken away. The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution because the creators of the Constitution wanted to make sure that it protected basic rights, including the right to bear arms. It was also added to the Constitution because shortly after it was ratified, James Madison wanted to give more power to the state militia and to give more power to the people to give them the ability to fight back against the Federalists and the tyrannical government they were creating. After fighting off the British, the Second Amendment was created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against controlling government and protect themselves with their own weapons.

    Read More

  • Gun Control Laws Will NOT Reduce Crime

    2312 Words  | 5 Pages

    The second amendment of the U.S. Constitution 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("The Constitution of the United States," Amendment II)." This means that citizens of the United States have the right to privately own and possess firearms. However, this has created controversy because some believe that there are many who abuse this right to commit criminal acts. Some believe that this amendment only applies to the eighteenth century lifestyle when the United States was under British control. A collective rights theory asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

    Read More

  • The Controversy of the Second Amendment of the Constitution

    997 Words  | 2 Pages

    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. This ambiguity has left room for action by legislative bodies and the courts to pass laws and make interpretations that influence the way this Amendment is applied and enforced. The Second Amendment says, "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." (Amendment 2).

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Right To Bear Arms

    1959 Words  | 4 Pages

    According to www.archives.gov, the second amendment of the United States Constitution reads 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.” This amendment is

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay: American Have the Right To Bear Arms

    1502 Words  | 4 Pages

    From this amendment it is apparent that the founders of our country knew in 1791 that guns did and would continue to play a role in the lives of Americans. Things haven't really changed that much.

    Read More

  • The National Rifle Association (NRA)

    793 Words  | 2 Pages

    The 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.

    Read More

  • The Second Amendment

    1716 Words  | 4 Pages

    As violence and murder rates escalate in America so does the issue of gun control. The consequence of this tragedy births volatile political discourse about gun control and the Second Amendment. The crux of the question is what the founding fathers meant when they wrote, “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.” Since the writing of the Second Amendment the make and model of firearms has changed dramatically and so has the philosophies of the people. A rifle is no longer defined as a single shot, muzzle-loading musket used to primarily protect families or solely for food. Should the weapons we use today be protected by an amendment written nearly 222 years ago? Should the second amendment be rewritten? Does the Second Amendment apply to individual citizens? These questions spark extensive debates in Washington D.C. regarding what the founding fathers intended the amendment to be. The answer to this question lies in the fact that despite hundreds of gun control articles having been written , still the gun control issue remains unresolved. History tells us gun control debates will be in a stalemate until our judicial system defines or rewrites the Second Amend. This paper will examine the history of the Second Amendment, and attempt to define the framers intent, gun control legislation and look at factors that affect Americans on this specific issue...

    Read More

  • The Second Amendment - The Right To Bear Arms

    2184 Words  | 5 Pages

    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. There are two major sides to this debate, one being the collective side, which feels that the right was given for collective purposes only. This side is in favor of having stricter gun control laws, as they feel that by having stricter laws the number of crimes that are being committed with guns will be reduced and thus save lives. However while gun control laws may decrease criminals’ access to guns, the same laws restricts gun owning citizens who abide by the law; these citizens make up a great majority of the opposing side of this argument. These people argue that the law was made with the individual citizens in mind. This group believes that the Amendment should be interpreted to guarantee citizens free access to firearms. One major group that is in strong opposition of stricter gun control laws is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA argues that having stricter gun control laws will only hinder law-abiding citizens. The final outcome on this debate will mainly depend on how this Amendment is going to be interpreted.

    Read More

  • America Needs Gun Control

    1161 Words  | 3 Pages

    For years proposals for gun control and the ownership of firearms have been among the most controversial issues in modern American politics. The public debate over guns in the United States is often seen as having two side. Some people passionately assert that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns while others assert that the Second Amendment does no more than protect the right of states to maintain militias. There are many people who insist that the Constitution is a "living document" and that circumstances have changed in regard to an individual’s right to bear arms that the Second Amendment upholds. The Constitution is not a document of total clarity and the Second Amendment is perhaps one of the worst drafted of all its amendments and has left many Americans divided over the true intent.

    Read More

  • The Right to Bear Arms

    1317 Words  | 3 Pages

    The second amendment states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Founding Fathers included this in the Bill of Rights because they feared the Federal Government might oppress the population if the people did not have the means to defend themselves as a nation or individuals.

    Read More

  • Gun Control And The Second Amendment Essay

    1112 Words  | 3 Pages

    The topic of gun control comes with a widely spilt crowd. Some people believe that gun control is essential, especially in today’s world. Some people think gun control will help with decreasing crime and making the nation a safer place for us to live. On the other hand, there are people who speak of anti-gun control. These people believe the right to bear arms would make our nation a safe place to live due to the fact that we would have protection. Do you think the Government has the right to make something illegal like the right to bear arm? In my opinion, the Government cannot simply because it will be an offence to our founding fathers, who gave us the national right to bear arm. Also, for making

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Gun Control

    840 Words  | 2 Pages

    Lately, Gun control has been one of the most talked about topics in the nation. It is a very sensitive and controversial topic due to gun crime. These new restrictions not only affect people who oppose firearms, but especially the people who depend on it for protection.The right to bear arms is the peoples right to bear arms for their own defense. These are also the “political writings” of John Locke and many others.The concept of the “Right to bear arms” was derived from the Bill of Rights in 1689 which says: That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law. Citizens have a right to bear arms gun control laws will not prevent gun violence Death by gun rates were lower before gun control was out into effect.

    Read More

More about The Context Of The Second Amendment

Open Document