A topic for debate is, whether the 2nd Amendment protects individual rights to own a firearm. For the past century, political scientist and private citizens have compelling arguments about the exact meaning of the 2nd Amendment. For example, citizens that want to protect the individual’s right to possess a firearm concentration on the “right to bear arms” portion. While those concerned with communal responsibilities put emphasis on the “well-regulated militia” phrase to further implement restrictive gun laws. Although, both sides have a numerous amount of countless reasons for why they believe the 2nd
Amendment exist, there is always a better argument. So, after reviewing what each side says, a final verdict will discuss about which article is stronger. The 2nd Amendment is a fundamental principle for the Republicans, they believe that each citizen has the “right to bear arms” which enables citizens to have a free-state and to keep a tyrannical government at bay. Conservatives pride themselves on their patriotism and the upholding of individual freedoms. So, any sociological changes do not hold bearing on the freedoms written in the Bill of Rights.
When the Bill of Rights was eing written by James Maddison, Americans were passionate about keeping individual freedoms and feared a centralized government. With this in mind, “Only the individual capable of defending himself with arms if necessary possessed the moral character to be a good republican citizen” (Madaras & SoRelle 105). Therefore, each citizen has a moral duty to own a firearm to protect them self, their property, and their land and this right shall not be infringed. Additionally, several state bills of rights were separately articulated and presented at various conventions that indicated similar privileges.
States such as Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, and Massachusetts, overlooked the need for a “well-regulated militia” and agreed that the government shall not restrict the right for a citizen to own a firearm. The statesmen felt the citizens were better off protecting themselves due to the belief that a standing army during a time of peace is hazardous to liberty. This shift in thought occurred after the American Revolution. The people believed that America was departing ways from the Old World of corruption, however they were entirely wrong. For instance, during the war Americans behaved imilar to their European rivals.
For example, the people claim that the public officials were participating in dishonest ways to gain money, farmers and merchants were greedy, Americans traded with their adversaries, the government relied on the conscription of men, and confiscated the land for the war (Madaras & SoRelle 107). As a consequence, this lack of trust made people believe it was only necessary to take care themselves and not rely on the government. Although, the battle of Yorktown was fought by a militia, the people felt the militia was ineffective and their own moral strengths caused hem to win the Revolutionary War.
So, to the conservatives it is their duty to uphold these morals today. They feel that any regulation the government tries to implement on firearms is unconstitutional and an infringement on individual liberties that the early Americans fought to uphold. An alternative view of the 2nd Amendment relies profoundly on the phrase of a “well-regulated militia. ” With this interpretation, private citizens do not have the right to own a firearm. It is easy to understand that the leaders of the American Revolution held a different interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. At that time, Americans were fighting for independence from Great Britain.
However, regardless of the view of the militia’s weak performance during the Revolutionary War, Americans still trusted that without a “well-regulated militia” the republican government would fail. For example, the battle of Yorktown was a major turning point of the war that was led by Washington’s militia and without that victory the war would’ve continued. Also, this lesson continues to echo throughout history, when citizens organize into local militias they will be able to stop a tyrannical government from eveloping and defeat foreign invaders from taking their land. Additionally, a well-regulated militia can help deter civil disorders.
Again, which history has also shown that republican governments with armed citizens are profoundly vulnerable to internal uproar. For instance, in Massachusetts, Daniel Shay’s Rebellion displays the threat that car citizens feel they have the right to own firearms. When a group begins to feel disenfranchised they will exercise the right to bear arms in an illegal fashion, which can cause the republic to fail. occur when private The leaders that wrote the 2nd Amendment wanted to create a thical government and sought the means to protect the rise of the new republic institutions.
They understood that if people are armed with weapons, those people in return can become dangerous. Although, previously stated that with the “right to bear arms” that the leaders of the colonies overlooked the phrase “well-regulated militia” however, they did implement similar context that could also be interpreted that they too understood that people should be trained to handle a firearm prior to being able to own one. So, from this point of view, it is up to a well-regulated militia to secure national defense, not rivate citizens.
Although the conservative argument appears to be stronger, for my moral reasoning, I agree with the notion of a well-regulated militia being the more sensible argument. Within today’s society, Americans are no longer trying to free themselves from tyranny and attempting to construct a republic. Instead, American’s are taking advantage of the conservative view of the right to bear arms and using it on each other. There is no reason for people to armed with a gun unless they are going hunting or they’re trained and serving a purpose such as fighting a war.
The 2nd Amendment is open ended to be interpreted as both to the “right to bear arms” and “well- regulated militia” due to the fact it isn’t up to the government to decide to take guns away. Instead, it is up to the citizens to recognize when these interpretations should be used. For instance, a numerous amount the founding fathers agreed that a standing army during a time of peace can be dangerous. Consequently, this can be easily seen with how people are acting today with the access to firearms. For example, America is known to lead the world in having the most guns and along ith that carries the title of having the most gun homicides.
In a recent a study written by Politifact said, “24 Americans have been killed by foreign terrorism in the last decade, while 280,024 Americans were killed by guns” (Qiu). In other words, this shows that the major threat to America is not foreign invasion, instead it is at home with private citizens owning guns. Therefore, people need to begin with concentrating on the real issues that regard firearms, because if they’re not away fighting wars, the access to firearms should be limited for individual citizens. A continuous manner in question is, what did the ounding fathers mean when they wrote the 2nd amendment?
The conservatives of country argue that the “right to bear arms” is an individual’s freedom and shall not be infringed. While the other dispute is the 2nd amendment is there for only those in a “well-regulated militia. ” While both make compelling arguments for which is better, the one that holds the most truth is the “well- regulated militia. ” America is no longer fighting a war against tyranny and Americans are using guns to kill fellow Americans. In till there is an actual war commenced on American soil, Americans should restrict access to firearms.