bear-arms

Leila Grey – The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Second Amendment was initially enforced because the American public was searching for a new normal after the American Revolution. During this time, anti-federalists were scared of having another oppressive government. The federalists believed that by allowing people to have guns, it would begin to lessen the amount of power the government had over people by giving them weapons to defend themselves. The common understanding of this amendment was that militias, made up of working class citizens, were able to have weapons solely for defensive purposes. Along with this, the militias were given limited military training to ensure their ability to defend themselves and others. Originally, the Second Amendment was only applied to the federal government and each individual state could come up with their own regulations regarding firearms and weapons. This later became a large debate about whether the federal or state government should be in charge of gun bans and mandates in each state.   

There have been many debates about the Second Amendment starting with the United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The United States v. Cruikshank case argued that the federal government should not have authority over the individual states opinions on guns. There have also been differing opinions regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Adam Winkler claimed that the Founding Fathers did not intend for the government to have guns without regulations and that when the amendment was placed, they had people checking and inspecting guns before and after they were purchased. He also states that the founders aimed for this amendment to ensure safety from a possible tyrannical government or invaders. However, in 2008 the case of District of Columbia v. Heller took place. Heller argued that the handgun regulations in D.C went against their individual constitutional right to be able to carry guns for self defense. The other side of this debate argued that the Second Amendment only defends a small individual right and it should be inferred that there would be state mandates in areas with high crime rates. This case is important because it was the first court case to address whether the right to bear arms applied to an individual or if it was intended only for state militias.   

I found that the D.C. side of the District of Columbia v. Heller case was more persuasive because Heller argues that the Second Amendment does not limit the right to bear arms to a militia, however, the amendment clearly states that when referencing a free state, an orderly militia is given the right to carry guns, not the individual. Even though the people who form a militia are not appointed the title of being a soldier, they are meant to defend their community if necessary. Since many states within the nation have advocated for the right to carry firearms, in those states there should be more regulations that explicitly state where guns will be allowed along with having those rules more heavily enforced. In addition to heavier mandates, there should also be background checks for people who want to buy guns to scan for any compromising factors, like a mental illness or previous criminal activity, that could lead to extreme violence or dangers.   

2nd Amendment

Video

Written Component

The second amendment was written because of a mix of fear of a British invasion and basic mistrust of professional soldiers. With this fear the government decided to add an amendment to the constitution to allow for states to have a militia that allowed them to protect against foreign and domestic enemies without the government being able to stop them.

This was of course before the US had a real military though we do still have something similar to the state militias in the national guard. When it comes to interpreting things into something completely different than the original meaning nothing out does the second amendment the original text reads, “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.” Of course the common interpretation is very different and seems to commonly be everyone in America has the right to own and operate guns without restriction. Because of this so many different opinions and meanings have been debated but to simplify them all i’m going to make three sections: red, purple and blue, the red and blue of course pointing to the extremes not everyone’s views.

The red opinion is that everybody should have guns and that gun regulation will not work whatsoever and is an ineffective solution that we should not try to implement. The purple is more of a middle ground opinion basically saying that we should still allow people to own guns but impose strict regulation to purchase and usage like mental illness, age and criminal record.

And finally the blue this opinion is basically that we should ban all guns as allowing for people to own them is inherently dangerous. Of course the debates made by legal scholars are mainly centered around if the Second Amendment had focused on whether it protects a private right of individuals to keep and bear arms, or a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard, this can be seen in the case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

This can of course be connected to the American revolution as the point of the amendment was to allow states to protect themselves. I find the purple opinion the most persuasive as it is a good middle ground that has the highest probability of being agreed upon because though it is not a perfect solution it is one that everyone can agree on. And when it comes to changing the amendment well, I would re-word the entire amendment to be much more specific in the case of gun regulations: specify how they are different for active members of the military and specify the restrictions age and other that are required for owning each separate type of gun.

Molly – The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Bill of Rights was created following the American Revolution and the creation of the Constitution. The Second Amendment was crucial because the Founding Fathers wanted to legally give Americans the right to protect themselves and their security through the use of firearms and weapons. The amendment is responding to the desire for protection amongst the American people against unlawful violence. Most people understand the Second Amendment as being the individual right to bear arms. There is some divergence between who this right belongs to as some believe it is the right of the people while others believe it is the right of militia organizations. 

 

As for matters of debate about the Second Amendment, some believe that there is room for flexibility due to the evolution of weaponry. These legal scholars believe that, as the world evolves, gun control is increasingly necessary to provide order in society. Scholars that believe there should be regulations make the point that gun control isn’t exactly a new concept because, during the Founding Era, there were laws that regulated weaponry.  These laws banned untrustworthy people from possessing guns and required people to have guns that were appropriate for military service. Ultimately, the Second Amendment is about ensuring public safety. Others, however, believe that this amendment should be followed rigidly. They maintain the belief that the right to bear arms shouldn’t be restricted. The Second Amendment is like the First Amendment in that it is an inalienable right that everyone has. Gun control laws, while they aim to save lives and prevent crime, ultimately infringe on the individual freedom that all American citizens have. District of Columbia v. Heller demonstrates is just one example of the issues that come about with this debate. This case is illustrative because it shows how gun control may be violating the Second Amendment. Heller, a D.C. special police officer, was allowed to have a firearm when on duty but he wasn’t allowed to get a license for a handgun to keep at home. He argues that needing a license for a personal firearm infringes on his Second Amendment rights as an American citizen. 

 

This provision connects to the theme of individual rights that come up very often during the course of history. I think the most persuasive matter of debate is the argument that advocates for gun control because of the danger that is posed to so many people without gun control. With the increase of gun violence in America, better gun control laws are incredibly necessary and strictly abiding by the Constitution as time and technology evolve just isn’t viable.  This amendment is already such a major topic of discourse in America, especially today with the rise of gun violence. I would say to advocate for your beliefs on this amendment, go to protests and, most importantly, educate yourself on the topic. I would suggest this adaptation because it is incredibly important to form your own opinion based on unbiased information and to support it.