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). A central argument put forth by gun-control advocates is that since there is no longer a "militia", that individuals should lose their rights to own a gun. They often assert that the term "militia" should now be defined as each state's National Guard or Reserves.
in Anastaplo 61).” The first argument is that some people view the Second Amendment as two separate rights. The right of the people to keep and bear arms can be interpreted with the idea that each individual has the right to keep and bear arms; whereas, it could be a collective right giving just the members of the Militia the right to have guns (Gold). It is believed that the original meaning of the right to bear arms and the militia in the same Amendment was because in the early times of America the citizens needed weapons to guarantee their freedom and prevent the government from forming a dictatorship (Edel xi). The second debate is that the Amendment is one statement, therefore meaning that the militia has the right to bear arms. The problem of understanding the meaning of the Second Amendment has been brought before many courts all across America and has been ruled upon in different ways at different times.
Those who are against change are saying that the Constitution cannot be changed because the guns aren’t to blame but the people that are using them. Finally, the type of gun a person can own is a huge issue between both sides. Those who agree in changing the laws are saying semi automatic guns should be banned. While those who are against changing the laws are saying semi automatic guns can be used for hunting and sport. The only way to reach a compromise between both sides are to have a proper vote throughout the Untied States and come to a conclusion on what guns should be banned.
Handguns should not be restricted because they are a right in the second amendment, they offer self protection and crime deterrent and that there are already restrictions put in place to control guns, and finally there are a couple of examples where handgun bans have not been effective. One of the biggest reasons that handguns should not be banned is because of the Second Amendment. 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.” People who argue that guns should be banned state the Second Amendment was not intended for the regular civilian, but rather the militia. This is where they are wrong. The Supreme court has taken a case like this in Heller vs District of Columbia.
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.
There has been so much controversy and debating lately regarding whether we the American people should have the right to own and use firearms. In the United States Constitution the II 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). Many people would like to argue the point of this amendment, even though it clearly states that it is the right of the people of the United States of America to own and use their guns and that this right should not be broken or violated. United States citizens have the right to use their guns for protection as well as recreation. Our State Constitution also states that we have a right to bear arms.
Every American should have the right to protect them self. The second amendment to the constitution of the United States 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.”1 This amendment enforced a practice that had been occurring in America for years. When the constitution was forming, there was not a large standing army. Many inhabitants were minutemen, who needed a gun to help protect society; this is why the militia was mentioned in the amendment. The militia clause is merely a rationale for preserving the right.1 Even if today's well-regulated militia were the National Guard, the Second Amendment still protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.
The first theory is that as citizens we are to stand ready, arms in hand waiting to defend our nation from foreign and domestic threats. While other citizens argue that this amendment refers solely to personal ownership and protection. I believe that until we can all share an equal understanding of the amendment, we will not reach a sensible agreement on the matter. Although both sides have reached an agreement on tighter regulations for the sale of firearms, very little progress has been made in reforming this issue. The sale of firearms is an incredibly confusing process.
Many people believe our second amendment rights are being attacked, and that the government wants to take our guns away. It is my belief that Obama does not want to take our guns, but future administrations may use laws made today to do just that in the future. As more gun related tragedies occur in our country, the question has become "How can we reduce gun violence in our county? ", as opposed to "How can we take the peoples' guns away? ", but are the laws that the Obama administration are attempting to make paving the way for Americans being disarmed in the future?
Gun control advocates need to realize that passing laws that honest gun owners will not obey is a self-defeating strategy. Gun owners are not about to surrender their liberties or their right to bear arms. The Federal Govement of the United States should not be able to take away the right of law-abiding citizens to own a gun.