The Context Of The Second Amendment Essay free essay sample

, Research Paper The Context of The Second Amendment The reading of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has been a subject of contention since its credence over two-hundred old ages ago. This contention stems from the fact that the amendment was written for grounds for the most portion that do non hold any relevancy today. One side argues the amendment nothingness, and the other takes it out of historical context so it portrays the significance they want. To understand what the 2nd Amendment means, one must construe the existent text, the historical background for its acceptance, and what it means today. ? A good regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to maintain and bear Weaponries, shall non be infringed? ( Nesbit, 309 ) . What many people see when they read this is, ? the right of the people to maintain and bear Weaponries, shall non be infringed? . One can state that it clearly states that the people do hold a right to hold pieces. Who are? the people? ? Some argue that the people are merely what it says, citizens. ? [ M ] any legal historiographers have concluded that the right is corporate instead that single? ( Hook, 30 ) . Meaning that the right is giving to the province authorities non to single citizens. Others argue that it does give people the right to bear weaponries, but merely if you belong to a certain group. This group is defined by the beginning preamble to the Second Amendment, ? A good regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State? . This preamble is set out to modulate the other half of the Amendment. What is a reserves? ? [ A ] reserves is a organic structure of work forces enrolled for military service, and called out sporadically for drill and exercisings, but functioning full clip merely in exigency? ( Hook, 25 ) . This is speaking about a State sponsored reserves that is well-regulated. Since there are no State Militias do the people have any right to bear Arms? Harmonizing to this amendment it is up to the State to make up ones mind that. This whole Amendment is warrant? s the province the right to hold a well-regulated reserves in which the people can bear weaponries. ? [ T ] he persons right to bear weaponries applies merely to the saving or efficiency of a well-regulated [ province ] reserves. Except for lawful constabularies and military intents, the ownership of arms by persons is non constitutionally protected? ( Nisbet, 316 ) . One can non merely look at the text to understand the true significance of the Second Amendment 1 must besides look into the historical grounds for its acceptance. The battle with England and King George scared the American people. They saw a adult male corrupted by power and utilizing his power to make evil. The establishing male parents realized that one adult male holding so much power could be perverting. That is why they set up our political system with many cheques and balances so that one subdivision could non rule the other two. The establishing male parents feared that the one adult male in control could turn out to be a autocrat. For this ground, they feared to hold a standing ground forces of professionally trained soldiers. The establishing male parents set up the Second Amendment for the possibility that the authorities would hold to be overthrown. ? [ The Second Amendment, ] a statement possibly aimed less at the right of the person to transport weaponries than to forbid the constitution of a lasting ground forces of professional soldiers who might some twenty-four hours offer a menace to the civilian society the envisaged? ( Hook, 26 ) . So the 2nd Amendment was set up to protect the citizens from the possible subjugation they could undergo from their ain authorities. It was besides set up to protect us from other states. At the clip standing ground forcess were hired soldiers and soldier of fortunes who for the most portion fought for the money alternatively of the state. The establishing male parents believed that province reservess contending for their state and freedom would be much more effectual in conflict. ? A reserves is the lone safe signifier of military power that a popular goverment can use ; and because it is composed of the armed [ citizens ] , it will predominate over the materialistic professionals who adult male the ground forcess of neighbouring sovereign? ( Nesbit,318 ) . This is how we won the Revolutionary War, by utilizing province reservess. The Second Amendment was of import to the people so, but now does it truly have any significance? In modern times, we have what the establishing male parents feared the most, a national standing ground forces with the President as Commander. We have no State Militias that could give any opposition if President Clinton tried to take military control and ordered military personnels to implement oppressive Torahs. Fortunately, this has non happened. The job is that pieces have been a portion of this state from the beginning. In fact Congress at that clip did non even experience it necessary to set an Amendment in the Constitution because holding a fire arm was every bit common as siting a Equus caballus. ? [ T ] his right had non been questioned, for it was viewed as a traditional privilege lying outside the Constitution # 8230 ; ? ( Hook, 30 ) . Having a piece at that clip was so common that they did non even think about holding to legalise it. Today, is a different narrative. With more and more ordinances on pieces being passed, the Second Amendment is the lone thing groups like the NRA have to keep on to. Both sides need to sit down and happen a solution to this gun-control argument. Or one twenty-four hours this Amendment will be interpreted at face value and fire weaponries in citizens custodies will be a thing of the yesteryear, unless of class it is in a province sponsored reserves. As clip goes on the contention of the Second Amendment additions. When examined by the existent text, the historical background, and how it applies today, the Second Amendment has little if any relevancy for modern society. Groups like the NRA and ACLU need to work together to happen a solution to this gun-control argument so in the terminal both groups are satisfied with the consequences. Beginnings Nesbit, Lee. Gun Control Debate: You Decide. New York: Prometheus Books, 1990. Hook, Donald. Gun Control: The Continuing Debate. Washington: The Second Amendment Foundation, 1992.