The Meaning of the Second Amendment - Coursework Example

Running Head: Second Amendment Second Amendment of Second Amendment The Bill of Rights remains the cornerstone of American freedom and liberty. The Second Amendment allows citizens the right to bear and maintain weapons. This paper explains the meaning of the Second Amendment. It provides a deep analysis of what the founding fathers meant while framing this amendment. Finally it provides modern debate regarding its debate. It concludes that the Second Amendment should only be used to protect the right of legitimate security agencies to bear and maintain weapons. Introduction The Bill of Rights is a unique set of documents which are part of the United States Constitution. The founding fathers of the United States of America put forward these rights so as to protect the citizens of the country while imposing significant constraints on the federal government. The Bill of Rights are constitutional amendments inside the United States Constitution which allow choice and free will in terms of the citizen’s ability to practice religion, express opinions, possess weapons, appeal in American courts, and meet together without any federal interference. These amendments also help to prevent the federal government from making any laws that infringe on the individual rights of American citizens. Several ancient British laws like the Magna Carta were instrumental in the creation and drafting of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights has been considered the symbol of American freedom, human rights, and democracy. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights allows the citizens of the United States of America to maintain and sustain arms (Hickock, 1991). This research paper studies the Second Amendment in detail by providing a historical background and purpose. It makes conclusions regarding the motives of the founding fathers regarding the framing of this constitutional amendment. The research paper reviews the applicability of the constitutional amendment in the light of changing modern society. It finally makes the conclusion that the Second Amendment should only protect the rights of legitimate state sanctioned security forces. Second Amendment This constitutional amendment of the Bill of Rights provides citizens of the United States of America with the right to maintain and sustain weapons for their protection and defense. The amendment was passed because there were fears amongst the founding fathers that the federal government would seek to impose its own rule by disarming the people. Throughout the history of humanity, there are examples of totalitarian regimes ending resistance by imposing curbs and restrictions on weapons. The Second Amendment calls for the establishment of civilian militias which would allow citizens to maintain and keep weapons. The Second Amendment states that “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” (Hickock, 1991). Historical background The Second Amendment was influenced by the concept of militias that were prevalent in England. Throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the English monarch had made it mandatory for the citizens to maintain, keep, and sustain weapons for the protection and stability of the kingdom. English Common Law also recognized the right of citizens to bear and maintain weapons for their safety and security (Hickock, 1991). They were considered to be essential to prevent tyrannical regimes from imposing their will and determination on the masses. Colonists living in the American frontier also had to endure frequent attacks by hostile Native American tribes. The benefits of civilian militias were that they enabled the mother country to reduce the costs of maintaining and deploying regular armies. Intentions of the Founding Fathers The founding fathers of the United States of America feared that a standing army would lead to the disarming of the civilians. They thought the weapons were necessary for the defense and protection of the masses. Citizens were considered to have the right to keep weapons which was a symbol of liberty and freedom. The use of standing armies was to ensure that there was no resistance against the nobility and aristocracy. One researcher compared this to early nineteenth century England, where the people had been disarmed. This had led to the curbing of the freedom and liberties of the English people. The creation of civilian militias would assist in the safety and security of the country. The founding fathers hoped that civilian militias would be the first line of defense against hostile predatory nations. These militias would also be instrumental in crushing any rebellions or revolutions. Hostile Native American tribes were launching periodic attacks on American settlements with the assistance of Britain. There were also economic considerations about the costs of maintaining regular and standing armies (Cottrol, 1994). The armies of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries required the supply of logistics, provisions, and weapons through long distances. The frontier territory of the United States of America made traveling difficult in that time period because of hostile Native Americans and difficult terrain (Cottrol, 1994). Standing armies also gave the rulers the ability to harass and restrict the movements and aspirations of the common people according to the founding fathers. Clashes between Federalists and Anti-Federalists The Constitutional Convention of 1787 led to the creation of Federalists and Anti-Federalists. The Federalists supported the sanction and endorsement of the Constitution while the Anti-Federalists were opposed to this process. The Anti-Federalists believed that standing armies would threaten the freedom and liberty of the nation. This faction could not succeed in preventing the endorsement of the Constitution but they laid the foundations for the creation of the Bill of Rights (Malcolm, 1994). This Bill of Rights was opposed by the Federalists because they believed that a federal standing army could never be a match for civilian militias. A federal army in their view would only have a few thousand soldiers which would be outnumbered by civilian militias. The Federalists insisted that the federal government must be given certain duties which would carry many benefits for the individual states. The regulation of the civilian militias was crucial for the common defense of the United States of America. The Anti-Federalists however were vehemently opposed to any attempts to disarm them. They considered the possession and maintenance of weapons as crucial for the protection and security of liberty and freedom (Malcolm, 1994).There was also a general distrust and suspicion of the Congress which could curb the liberties of the states. The debate between the Anti-Federalists and Federalists reached a conclusion and compromise with the provision of the Second Amendment. This constitutional amendment helped to preserve the right to maintain weapons and militias. It regulated the system of civilian militias which was prevalent in the nineteenth century inside the United States of America. Application in Modern Society The meaning of the Second Amendment has remained controversial in the modern age between people who support the right of citizens to bear and maintain arms as opposed to those people who seek to restrict the ownership and possession of weapons. The opponents of gun control laws believe that the Second Amendment gives the individual the right to bear and keep arms (Malcolm, 1994). This is similar to the other ten amendments which refer to the protection of individual rights. A major point of contention has been whether the Second Amendment refers to the collective or individual right of individuals to bear and maintain arms. Gun control advocates however insist that the amendment does not prohibit local states from passing laws which would restrict the ownership of weapons. Advocates of gun rights counter this argument by stating that the Bill of Rights refers to all citizens of the United States of America. One interpretation of the Second Amendment has been that it was intended for the protection of the civilian militia to bear and possess arms. However the constitutional amendment is vague about the definition of militias. Modern American military forces are dependent upon regular and standing armies for defending the country from foreign aggression and crushing insurrections. The regular armed forces also play prominent roles in military conflicts abroad. The importance of the militia has declined in the light of changing modern social conditions. The reasons for the establishment of Second Amendment have declined in the light of changing social conditions. Modern interpretation of Second Amendment The United States does not have a civilian militia which was present in the eighteenth century. The National Guard which can be considered as a militia is regulated and armed by the federal government. Being a legitimate militia in the modern times, the National Guard is entitled to the protection of bearing and maintaining weapons. Unorganized militias cannot be granted protection because of their dubious nature (Shalhope, 1982). The social context of the eighteenth century has changed because the National Guard meets the demands of maintaining internal security and defending the borders. The founding fathers intentions can be maintained without giving the individuals the right to possess and bear weapons. The changing definition of militia will assist policy makers in enacting gun control laws. Gun control laws will not infringe on the right of the National Guard to maintain and keep weapons. Individual citizens should not be given the right to possess weapons because in the current society they will not be able to contribute to the security of the nation. The Second Amendment should be redefined to give legitimate militias like security agencies and National Guard the right to maintain and possess weapons. As crime rates have been soaring, there is an increasing sense to initiate gun control laws against individuals. Research concluded has found that countries with gun control laws have lower incidents of crime as compared with nations that have proliferation and easy access of weapons (Robert, 2008). Gun control laws would enable the government to reduce the number of deaths from criminal activity. Conclusion The Bill of Rights remains the foundation of American laws which protect the freedom and rights of individuals. The founding fathers had desires to ensure that citizens would be protected from the excesses of federal government. The Second Amendment was passed to protect the right of citizens to bear and maintain weapons. The amendment also called for the rights of civilian militias to defend themselves with guns. The founding fathers believed that weapons would guarantee the liberty and freedom from any tyrant government. It would assist them in organizing militias which would be the first line of defense against foreign invaders and domestic insurrections. In the modern political age, the Second Amendment has been used to support and oppose the passing of gun control laws. The advocates of gun rights believe that individual rights are protected under the Second Amendment. The advocates of gun control laws believe that the amendment refers to the right of militias to bear and keep arms. The National Guard is the modern equivalent of the militia which is armed and regulated by the state. In the modern age, the individual cannot provide security of the nation. Only legitimate and government backed agencies like law enforcement and National Guard should be allowed to maintain and bear arms. Finally the Second Amendment cannot be used to allow citizens to bear and maintain weapons. Guns have been the leading cause of violence and criminal activity. The use of gun control laws would assist in keeping crime at low levels while allowing only legitimate militias to bear and maintain arms. References: Hickock, Eugene W., Jr., ed. The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1991 Cottrol, Robert J., ed. Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment. New York: Garland Publishing, 1994 Malcolm, Joyce Lee. To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994. Shalhope, Robert E. “The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment.” Journal of American History 69 (December 1982): 599-614. Robert J. Spitzer, The Politics of Gun Control.  4th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2008. Read More