About this sample
About this sample
Words: 2782 |
14 min read
Published: Dec 16, 2021
Words: 2782|Pages: 6|14 min read
With different interpretations of the Second Amendment, as well as different opinions on it whether people want to support it or abolish it can come different questions on why it became an Amendment especially the second of them all, as well as questions on who and what it helps as well as how it can hurt people. Through researching and asking ourselves these questions we can find the answers to support ones beliefs, and to show what it does in relations to this current day. From why it was founded, the importance of the Second Amendment, all the way too how it affects people on a daily basis.
The Second Amendment is a controversial topic between many, whether they want it gone completely, those who want it for hunting, and the others wanting it to protect themselves from outside threats to themselves. From why it was founded and placed as the second most important Amendment, too the amount of court rulings of citizens rights being taken from them either on purpose or without actually knowing. Even too the amount of mass shootings there has been in recent decades, too law abiding citizens firearms being taken away through laws to protect others. These are questions asked frequently, whether or not they can be answered.
Through the beginning of the colonies, and the Revolutionary war, the reasoning why the founding fathers created the Second Amendment can be told in many ways, and through different opinions. Our founding fathers had a purpose in creating the 2nd Amendment, for reasons being mostly to defend themselves. Stating '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.' Some say the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to individual constitutional right of ownership of firearms. Whereas others believe that the phrase “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” refers to the state’s constitutional right for a militia. Citizens were order by General Gage in 1775 to turn in all weapons in Boston. During the turn in the citizens turned in 38 blunderbusses, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets, and 1778 muskets and was promised they would be returned eventually (Halbrook, n.d.). After the Constitution was ratified James Madison proposed the 2nd Amendment in order to provide the states more power in their militia. This was used to be a middle ground for federalists – citizens that supported the Constitution, and anti-federalists – citizens that apposed the Constitution (Brooks, 2017). The reason for this is the colonists have just fended off the English using their own muzzle loaded rifles, so the 2nd Amendment gave them a chance to be able to defend themselves, as well as fight back a tyrannical government (Brooks, 2017). If those were the reasons on why they created the Second Amendment, then what was the reason for putting it as the second most important.
For what the Framers of the constitution had to go through, it can be seen as to why they would be it as the second most important Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The framers of the constitution saw an importance of placing the 2nd Amendment as our number two, right behind the 1st Amendment, which protects freedom of press, religion, speech, and so on. After having to defend themselves against the British army, the most feared military in the world, and fighting against the King so that they could have their own rights in their new land the founding fathers new they had to include a ruling defending their right to defend themselves. As the founding fathers started their own government they wanted to be sure that they had their right to keep and bear arms preserved. As an American you have the natural born given right to be able to defend yourself and your property against anything tyrannical, whether it’s foreign or domestic. In the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment was included more so help the concerns of the citizens across the states. From what they went through, how can the Second Amendment guarantee someone’s individual right.
How does the Second Amendment guarantee a citizen right to own firearms, more so for reasons of self defense and hunting. The 2nd Amendment can have many interpretations to many different people depending on their ideology and opinions on the subject. For 200 years, or more, with much debate and even more legislative action there has been no real resolution concluded by the courts of what rights the 2nd Amendment protects, whether it be purchase, transportation, and possession of firearms and their regulations. The 2nd Amendment has two parts, the initial clause which states: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” which can bring the meaning to a state’s constitutional right, and the ending being: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed” which can bring meaning to a citizens personal constitutional right. Even though the Second Amendment guarantees and citizens individual right’s, does it guarantees as states’ rights for its own militia.
[bookmark: _Hlk24389034] How does the Second Amendment guarantee a States right to a militia, even after the Revolutionary War how can the Second Amendment protect that right. Stating from the 2nd Amendment that “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. Under Article 1 Section 8 provided a Constitutional check to discipline, organize, and arm the federal militia. As well as checking the federal government’s power, the 2nd Amendment also provides governments within states the power to oppose the general government in cases of tyranny, in what Luther Martin (1744/48-1826) said was the “last coup de grace”. It also set out the constitutional rule of militaristic virtue of ancient Rome and Floratine that every citizen is a soldier and vice versa. Ever since the making of the Second Amendment there has always been court rulings on what has been right or what has been wrong.
How has the Supreme Court ruled their own saying on how the Second Amendment should be practiced in the past decades, whether if it’s owning something specific, or for use of defense. Before 2008 when the trial proceeded the District of Columbia had a law making it illegal to carry a firearm that was unregistered as well as prohibiting the registration of all handguns. It also allows the police chief to issue one year licenses, whereas no person may carry without one. It also requires all civilians that legally own a firearm to be unloaded, and fully dissembled and put away, or to have a trigger lock. A District of Columbia police officer wanted and tried to register a handgun for use at home, but the district rejected him. The officer filed a lawsuit seeking, due to the Second Amendment, that the law went against every citizens Second Amendment rights. The District of Columbia court dismissed the lawsuit, but the Circuit upended saying that the Second Amendment protects a citizen’s right to own and possess firearms and that the Districts total ban on handguns, as well as the regulations on firearms kept in homes deemed unconstitutional (District of Columbia v. Heller, n.d.). In 1982 Chicago passed a law that banned newly registering handguns and making registration a prequalifying step in the possession of a firearm. The case arose in 2008 where Otis Mcdonald, and others filed the lawsuit against Chicago.
Every lawsuit alleged that the law passed in Chicago violated a citizen’s right to own and carry weapons and firearms, which the Court had found was protected by the Second Amendment (Duignan, n.d.). In 2016 a man named Jamie Caetona was convicted for possessing a stun gun in Massachusetts. Jamie Caetona appealed against the state court, claiming that her conviction was in violation of her Second Amendment rights. The Massachusetts Supreme Court held that the stun gun that Jamie Caetona was in possession of was not protected by the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment does in fact protect her right to possess a stun gun as the Second Amendment extends out to arms that were not in existence. In the state of New York you must obtain a license in order to possess a firearm. In order to obtain a firearm license you must obtain it from the local licensing officer, which in New York city is the police commissioner. The law allows two types of licenses, one being the carry and the other a premises license. This case is about the premises side of the license, which is about how licensed people are only able to take their handguns, unloaded and locked in a case, too and from their household to one of seven gun ranges in the city. They are not allowed to take said handgun outside the city premises, or to other households that the person may own. This case opened up in 2019 and has yet to be decided (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, n.d.). Through the use of the Second Amendment criminals have been given a mean to be able to commit crimes and murder more easily and be able to cause more deaths more easily.
The cause of mass shootings over the decades can be from a multitude of reasons, all stemming from the use of the Second Amendment. Mass shootings which use to be a rare event, are now happening more frequently in the United States. With every mass shooting happening, citizens and political figures are becoming more accepting to possible solutions for more concern on mental health and restrictive gun control. Mental illness has most recently been the main problem people have thought to be the reason behind mass shootings. In reality around three percent to five percent of all violent crimes, including mass shootings, can be connected to mental illness. Another area that people tend to blame would be video games, where through research, found no connection between video games and firearm ownership. The last blamed area would be gun laws. It has shown that states that have more loose gun laws, that aren’t as strict as other states show to have more gun violence then states that have more strict gun laws. Senseless violence through use of firearms has always happened, in current days and in past days.
If the U.S. were to abolish the Second Amendment would the use of firearms in senseless violence have the possibility of going down. Senseless violence created through the use of firearms will have a very slight chance to stop if the Second Amendment were to be abolished. For reasons as the number of citizens that own, what are currently called “ghost guns” can be considered high even though there are not any actual numbers to support it. Another reason is if the Second Amendment were to be abolish the number of citizens that would actually turn their firearms in could be a small amount. With all those weapons that have not been turned in could end up in the wrong hands and leave the good citizens hands empty and vulnerable. Another way it would not stop is firearms could be trafficked in through other countries through the black market, it may not be a large number of weapons, but it will be weapons in possibly bad hands. The confiscation of firearms could cause complications, due to citizens not turning them in, and the number of firearms there are.
If the Second Amendment were to ever be abolished and firearms were to be confiscated, the method and complications that can come to be can be in the multiples. If the Second Amendment were to ever be rescinded and there was call for mass confiscation of all civilian owned firearms there could be some complications. The confiscation could possibly end up being similarly close to how red flag laws work. State law enforcement or federal law enforcement will come to your house to confiscate the firearms. There can be problems to this situation as there are “ghost guns” that civilians own, that the federal government will not know about. Another complication can be some citizens that would deem this unconstitutional and take matters into their own hands to prevent the confiscation of their firearms. Another way the confiscation can be complicated is the number of firearms that will come through into the U.S. illegally. The Second Amendment was created for the use of the people to protect themselves from multiple different threats that there are in this world.
The Second Amendment is important to the people’s constitution as it gives them the right to protect themselves from anything that can be a threat to them. The Second Amendment was created by our founding fathers for a multitude of reasons. One reason the Second Amendment was created was for protection of the people against a tyrannical government, and any or all foreign threats. The Second Amendment was also created for the purpose of the citizens to be able to protect themselves from any person that would be considered a threat to them. If the Second Amendment was abolished in any form any law abiding citizen that used their firearms for defense in a legal manner will be left defenseless, while criminals will still manage to find a way to get a firearm into their hands. Even if criminals were not able to get their hands on firearms they would have other manners of creating violence against others by using other objects such as knifes or hammers. The Second Amendment is more important in this current day, just as it was important back in the Revolutionary War. As methods of causing violence to become more technologically advanced, so would be the means of self defense, even if they methods are the same. Hence why the Second Amendment is still as important as it has ever been. The prohibition of firearms can possibly see no difference in our country seeing less violence.
For our country to see less violence would require the prohibition of firearms most could possibly think. Violence will always be around as it is part of human nature. If our country prohibited gun ownership and possession of any firearms that will leave more law abiding civilians defenseless. Criminals will always find a way to do what they need, whether its robbing a store or bank, or just committing murder they will find any means available to them. Criminals will still be able to use knifes or hammers, they can even construct firearms from basic materials obtained from a hardware store. Criminals can even possibly produce explosive weapons through the use of household items, or even use a vehicle to run pedestrians over if murder is their main goal. The prohibition of firearms will only make citizens defenseless against criminals and give criminals the upper hand. Being safer without guns is nothing but far from true, as if firearms are removed from the problem there are other objects that are capable of creating just as much, and even more harm to humans than firearms.
The Second Amendment is very important to the American people, but it does have down sides. Criminals will take advantage of the Second Amendment, by not following laws and committing crimes with firearms. As well as the Supreme Court being involved to help protect citizens rights or clarify how the Second Amendment should be applied in daily life. Even with how some citizens want the Second Amendment to be abolished, or restricted more, the Second Amendment will always be valuable to a majority of Americans, in terms of hunting, self-defense, and sporting.
Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled
Where do you want us to send this sample?
Be careful. This essay is not unique
This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before
Download this Sample
Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts
Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.
Please check your inbox.
We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!