preview

The Second Amendment

Satisfactory Essays
Stubblefield 1 Marlene Stubblefield Dr. Judith Palier American National Government 17 November 2013 The Second Amendant: What does it mean? 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... ... middle of paper ... ...o militias, and dismissed his lawsuit. Heller perused his lawsuit; the matter was appealed and sent to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The Court of Appeals reversed the lowers court decision based on reasons the Second Amendment clearly mentions an individual may bear arms while serving in the militia, and the same individual has a right protect himself and his family as sacrosanct. The court concludes that the city’s ban on handguns and its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional violated that right. In other words, an individual need not be in a militia to own a firearm, it is an individual’s right to own a firearm in self -defense. Heller concluded his defense by saying, “self-defense is a basic right recognized by ancient legal system to present, and it is the central component of the Second Amendment” (D.C. v Heller).
Get Access