The second amendment

Interpreting the Second Amendment

Since the start of the second part of the 20th century, the second Amendment has become a contentious issue. Gun control advocates started to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment after becoming alarmed by the rise in crime in society and the part that guns play in it. Therefore, proponents of the practice always encounter a significant obstacle when discussing gun regulation, namely the second amendment, which upholds the right to bear arms. (Kendrick). There are two major sides of interpreting the second amendment, one being the collective side which advocates that the right to bear arms for ordinary purposes and the second which supports individual use. Therefore, the second amendment throughout the years has delivered opposing conclusions. Some argue that the amendment was created to ensure that thriving and continuation of the state militias as means of defense while others claim that it was set up to ensure an individual’s right to own a firearm. It is important to note that the second Amendment is a bar to federal action only, this is because it has not been incorporated by the Supreme Court to apply to the states. Therefore, the opposing conclusions of the second amendment incline to learn in two ways. The first is that the modification was implemented to guarantee that individuals have the complete right to own firearms; the second is that the amendment was implemented to ensure that States could develop, arm and maintain their militias.

Militia-Only Interpretation

The second amendment has two opposing conclusions depending on its interpretation. The first argument is the implementation of the second amendment was for “militia-only” gun ownership. Since the bill states the maintenance of a ”well regulated“ militias as the reason for the right to acquire and bear arms, one can argue that gun control is entirely applicable as long as it targets private citizens and not state militias (Holt). The militia enthusiast claim that the implementation of the second amendment was because of the colonies fears of standing armies and their conviction that having militias would be the surest way of maintaining their freedom. It was a response to the distresses raised during the ratification of the constitutional that the authority of Congress to disarm the state militias and generate a federal army which posed an intolerable threat to the independence of the several states (Holt). Additionally, the interpretation protects militia-related and not self-defense related interests. Therefore, self-defense alone separated from any militia-related objective is not of the Amendments concern. The attitudes of Americans toward the military were quite different in the 1790s than it is today. There was mistrusting of the standing armies of the federal government because they could be used as tools of oppression as it was witnessed in Europe by the monarchs for centuries. In the race for independence, there was the regular army, although, the state militias did much of the fighting under the command of the local officers. Besides the war, the militias were in need because there were frequent attacks from the Native Indians, bandits, and troops from other states. Today, the state militias evolved into the National Guard in the state in the United States (Holt). These militias are part-time who are professionally trained and armed by the government. Nonetheless, no longer are state militias expected to take up arms in defense of the nation or the state. However, the US code still recognizes the unorganized militia as a body and the state laws vary on the subject.

Individual Right Interpretation

The second interpretation which has an opposing conclusion depicts the second Amendment as giving citizens the means to resist an oppressive government. The right to bear arms in this interpretation is a personal and an individual right thus permitting a law-abiding citizen to possess a gun in their home for personal protection (French). The opposing interpretation argues that the amendment gave the citizens the means to resist a tyrannical government, therefore it is the right of people to keep, and bear arms. Additionally, a fallacy seconding the individual’s rights to bear arms is that when governments fear people, there is liberty and a small probability of infringement of a person’s rights. The views that of individuals rights to bear arms also come from the literal wording of the second amendment which states that; there will be no infringement of the right of the people to bear arms. From the statement, the NRA and another group against gun control argue that the first, fourth and ninth amendments are all fabricated to refer to the citizens as individuals and not a state (French). The wording of the second amendment is therefore subject to an interpretation which is in the application for groups advocating for the right to gun ownership in the United States. The second amendment is, therefore, enthroned as a fundamental dimension of individual freedom. A strong argument supporting the individual right was the case District of Columbia V. Heller, 554 U.S in 2008. The landmark case the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 verdict that the 2nd amendment protects an individual’s right to own a firearm unconnected with the service in a militia. Additionally, the recognition that every other time that initial, unamended Constitution and the right of bills used the expression ”right of people,“ the phrase ambiguously referred to individual rights. Further analysis of the language indicates that the amendment was not creating a new right but was recognizing a previously-existing personal freedom- referencing in the 1689 English Bill of Rights. The language used ”shall not be infringed“ shows recognition, not creation (French).

Strengths and Weaknesses

One of the strengths of the second amendment is that it is an important symbol of individual freedom thus used as an expression of individual liberty. Additionally, the right for people to own firearms can help in self-defense or protection of the person and property. It also creates a sense of safety and security. Regarding a well-regulated militia gun ownership, the strengths include; owners are forced to comply with the standards to be responsible for the right they are given. Moreover, the law enforces the requirement for firearm license is that one can only purchase after applicants undergo a background check to scrutinize the possible history of crime, therefore encouraging good behavior (Toobin). The weaknesses of the second amendment of the right to bear arms include; increase the potential for gun-related violence. Studies indicate that people carrying guns are 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault that an assault victim without a weapon. Therefore, guns may not be the best choice for self-defense or protection. Gun ownership also increases the incidence of crime, especially violent offenses such as robbery with violence. Violent outburst have resulted in mass shooting and deaths in the United States. Furthermore, the risk of suicide has increased with gun ownership with 53% of all death by suicide that happened in 2005 in the U.S involved a firearm. Another disadvantage is that guns are very lethal and dangerous especially when a person is under the influence and intoxicated and when handled by a child.

Conclusion

The disadvantages of the second amendment outweigh the advantages of the bill. In the 21st century, there has been an increasing gun-related violence which has become a concerning issue of gun ownership in the United States (The Editors). Therefore, the 2nd amendment has relevance it has as it was in the 1790s. The dynamics of the world have shifted, and therefore, there is no need for protection against a tyrannical government. Hence, the second amendment should be repealed or adjusted to fit with the dynamics of the 21st century.

References

Cohen, David S. Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment. 13 June 2016. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-its-time-to-repeal-the-second-amendment-right-bear-arms-20160613. 13 June 2017.

French, David. Of Course, the Second Amendment Protects an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms. 13 April 2016. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433993/second-amendment-protects-individual-right-keep-bear-. 03 June 2016.

Holt, Mytheos. Does the Second Amendment Only Apply to State Militias? Liberals Are Making the Case — But We Look at the Evidence. 12 December 2012. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2012/12/19/does-the-second-amendment-only-apply-to-state-militias-liberals-are-making-the-case-but-we-look-at-the-evidence/. 02 06 2017.

Kendrick, Josh. Why We Shouldn’t Repeal The Second Amendment. 09 February 2016. http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/why-we-shouldnt-repeal-the-second-amendment/6668. 02 06 2017.

Spicer, Myles. It is time to repeal the Second Amendment. 01 August 2013. https://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2013/01/it-time-repeal-second-amendment. 03 06 2017.

The Editors. Repeal the second Amendment . 25 February 2013. http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/repeal-second-amendment. 31 05 2017.

Toobin, Jeffrey. So You Think You Know the Second Amendment? 17 December 2012. http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/so-you-think-you-know-the-second-amendment. 01 June 2017.