Analysis of Guns: A Loaded Argument A question that has rang in the ears of the American public and the judicial systems for over 60 years, “Does each American citizen have the right to own firearms or not?” This question was recently restated by Paul Rosenzweig the author of “Guns: A Loaded Argument”. In this commentary Rosenzweig often refers to how awfully indecisive the U.S. Circuits have been regarding the gun situation in America. Rosenzweig Also outlines how the Second amendment have given specific rights to specific individuals which “Shall not be infringed Paul Rosenzweig is a senior legal research fellow in the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation and an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University So that is where you can ask yourself what is the motive …show more content…
Either the second amendment entrust all free individuals of America the right to bear arms or a specific group of individuals the right to bear arms, Rosenzweig clearly states it is the latter.
Reviewing the second amendment Rosenzweig use Hermeneutics to evaluate the document. Beginning with the militia, Rosenzweig defines who the militia is in America. The militia are any able-bodied citizens who is able to serve in the military. Rosenzweig state we Americans are the militia “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves?” Furthermore, Rosenzweig includes the reasoning behind the need for the baring of arms, the second amendment state “Being necessary to the security of a free state. “A Free state” referring to the democracy of it all, “Congress has no power to disarm the militia” Rosenzweig reflects on this anonymous commentary of the bill of rights. From this perspective the right to bear arms is not that of which congress can give and take away but in the eyes of the people to
In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which 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”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical
The Second Amendment to the U.S Constitution is fiercely debated and interpreted differently among American citizens and argued with between the Legislative and Judicial branches of our government. “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,” (Brooks). Because of the Second Amendment, citizens have the right to possess firearms and use them for protection. When researching the origin of the Second Amendment, its modern applications, and its relevance in today’s society, one can determine the Second Amendment’s current implications on today’s society.
One of the most controversial issues in our society today is the topic of private gun ownership and gun control laws. This controversy has arisen mostly due to the different ways that the second constitutional amendment is interpreted. The amendment states that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Lott, 2000). On one side of the issue, there are those that believe that the amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. On the other side are those that contend that the amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.
People misuse or overuse the right to bear arms. Society believes since it is written in the constitution, we are able to own a gun for individual self defense or other purposes. Notably, the “right of self-defense is described by St. George Tucker as the first law of nature.”” In other cases, people believe it should not be in the constitution because it can be dangerous. However, another theory is that the constitutions defining statement is the people are to protect our democratic values. Uphold our traditional principles by defending against the foreign threats or domestic tyranny. With all of these concluding solutions to the nations debate over the right to bear arms, it is no wonder the U.S. has not come to a final decision. America, of course, will most likely never come to an agreement. Despite the argument, the second amendment is shaped to benefit the
Even though most legal scholars have claimed that the Second Amendment protects individuals in America right to bear arms. The 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." A University instructor Sanford Levinson, who is a liberal Democrat who stands behind many measures in gun control, says the "embarrassing" second amendment empowers people to want to own guns to protect themselves. Some of the American historians believe that the use of the word militia is not meant for a specific group of people like the military, but rather it is meant for the American people as a whole. The Second Amendment, like all of the other amendments, must be read along with the constitution (The Embarrassing Second Amendment p. 1).
"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." These are the words of the second amendment in the United States Constitution. The amendments guarantee america citizens the right to bear arms. This right grants men have the right to bear arms their for protection or for the militia they were served in. This amendment today should grant all civilians to own guns.
In America, the average amount of people shot per year is 100,000; over ten thousand defenseless people are murdered. The Second Amendment’s proclamation 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” has been an extensive topic of debate. Moreover, the amendment has been one of many debates over the several years throughout America. The discussion of gun control is often debated as to whether or not it is morally right to legally bypass the Second Amendment to avoid unlawful uses of arms. The Second Amendment allows citizens to carry firearms specifically for protection, gun control hinders that right and places civilians’ lives in danger. In short, the U.S. government’s intrusive restrictions on gun laws prevent law-abiding citizens from defending themselves with firearms.
The 2nd amendment of the constitution maybe one of the most infamous and controversial modification of the charter. The 2nd amendment protects a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms the law states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and shall not be infringed.” (“Second amendment” n.d.). The American Bar Association (“Bill of Rights” 1791) has stated that “there is more disagreement and less understanding about this right than of any other current issue regarding the Constitution. It is a confusing right and can be inferred in many ways and is interpreted accordingly with each case. The definition of the right to keep and bear arms is one of the most argued amendments in the constitution because some state the right refers to militia and their right of bearing arms to uphold and protect the security of a free nation when needed. While others believe the amendment gives each and every individual the right to keep and bear arms. However one construes the amendment, it has been a great topic of concern, argument and debate, ever since it has been ratified.
Second Amendment rights must be the most controversial section of the Constitution, it most definitely has to be the most challenged. Lawsuits have been brought up against the Second Amendment for many years, challenging whether or not it should still be a part of the Constitution, and the meaning behind the verbiage used. The anti-gun crowd has attempted multiple times to prove the Second Amendment should apply only to a militia and that the average citizen has no right to own a firearm. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is the largest lobbyist group for pro-gun rights and one of the most powerful interest groups in politics today. They have successfully supported the defense of the peoples’ right to own firearms for many years. After many years of failing to accomplish their agenda, the anti-gun crowd has a new tactic: instead of facing the multimillion members of the NRA (Statistic Brain Research Institute, 2014) they are now going after the gun manufacturers and dealers. They cannot stop the sale of guns therefore they want to eliminate the source. This paper will identify the historical foundation of the Second Amendment, describe the National Rifle Association’s involvement, and site the legal precedence and challenges.
America needs to institute, and initiate gun control laws throughout the entire nation. But not everybody who inhabits the United States believes in regulating arms. Those who are against establishing gun laws argue that gun control directly infringes upon their “right to bear arms” granted to them by the 2nd Amendment. Anti gun control supporters, such as the National Rifle Association, often claim that the act of regulating guns is a sufficient reason why such an Amendment was introduced in the constitution; to protect themselves from any and all forms of violation of civil liberties and freedom. Supporters of anti gun laws are unwilling to welcome any interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that do not match up “word for word,” as was written in the Bill of Rights.
The Second 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 It is important to understand that the Second Amendment was created in order to allow the American people to form militias in response to a tyrannical government attempting to suppress the American way of life. In order for Americans to form militias, they must uphold their freedom to bear arms as a
Now lets ask ourselves, what does the second amendment mean? Who gets to keep and bear arms? One side focuses on the phrase “A well-regulated militia” to argue that only people who are in a militia such as the National Guard have the right to bear arms. The other side focuses on the phrase “The right of the people” to argue that law-abiding citizens, whether or not they are in a militia have the right to bear arms. Who’s correct? For further insight, the wisdom and prudence of our founding fathers proves to be instructive, as they lived in this influential time. In the Federal Farmer number 28, Richard Henry Lee wrote, “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves.” In congruence with Richard’s thinking Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison saying, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve
The debate over the right to bear arms according to the Second Amendment has been a hotly contested issue for many years in American history. The matter has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first; disputed between politicians on the liberal and conservative side along with issues such as abortion, capital punishment, and gay marriage. The Supreme Court has officially defined the controversial Second Amendment by stating that states have the right to maintain a militia separate from a federally controlled army (Gale Encyclopedia, pg. 155-162). However, “Courts have consistently held that the state and federal governments may lawfully regulate the sale, transfer,
According to The Second Amendment of the Constitution, the citizens of the United States have the right to own and bear arms, in order to form a well-regulated militia for the security of the states. This right has been discussed for decades as an important issue for the American society, and it has been one of the most controversial issues in the second half of the twentieth century until nowadays. This right germinated with the threat to freedom that the standing army of professional soldiers brought to the Americans. Some argued that the right to bear arms is mainly concerned with self-defense while others argued that this right was implemented to avoid militia disarmament and protect the Free State. This right was
The second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of people to bear arms and was adopted in 1791. It guarantees all Americans "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is more described as supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. Former Chief Justice of the United States, Warren E. Burger writes an essay regarding “The Right To Bear Arms,” that originally appeared in the Parade Magazine in the 1990’s that questions if “The Right To Bear Arms,” is an outdated idea. Burger argument is that the gun control would lower if handguns were lowered. He also talks about the”Militias,” which is an army that protects the security of the state. Our “State Militias,” in our time, serves as a huge national defense.