The Second Amendment and Its Importance
The second amendment focused on the protection of all Americans’ rights, particularly the right to self-defense. This is where the laws governing the possession and use of firearms come into play. The amendment also addresses the right to own and use arms, and it went into effect on December 15, 1791. (Waldman 59-60).
Debates Surrounding the Second Amendment
It does not, however, cover specific weaponry such as rifles, pistols, and revolvers. The amendment has sparked lengthy debates in both houses of Congress in the United States. As part of the bill of rights, the problem is attempting to comprehend what the United States’ founding fathers had in mind when creating the Constitution. Also, it was done to protect the citizens against government enslavement (Rawle 30-34). The essay shall mainly focus on the second amendment and its expected result with particular reference to the gun laws and how the amendment has gotten debated in the U.S. houses of parliament.
Research Questions
Some of the research questions the essay will try to find answers to include:
i. What was the intention of the second amendment?
ii. What is the meaning of the particular terms used in it and what would be included or excluded from the amendment by a delegate in the conference?
Review of Existing Literature
In pursuit of understanding the second amendment, various scholars have come up with diverse understandings of the second amendment. According to Tucker (29-53), a properly-structured bill or amendment to an existing one is of particular importance to the security of any state. Therefore, in the case of gun laws and the right to own them, the debaters sought to highlight that it was the right of any individual to own the arms and keep them and this right ought not to get encroached. This argument could get considered as one of the paradigm shifts to liberty since a right for every person to defend himself or herself is among the fundamental laws of nature. Thus the rights should also get granted to the people of the lowest cadre as possible for any prudent government (Tucker 29-34).
For instance, in the debate leading to the second amendment, the debaters alluded to the fact that England had disarmed its citizens in the name of ensuring security for all. The efforts got done strategically to lure the citizens into aristocracy and support any measure aimed at curbing the gun menaces experienced in the U.S. in the recent past. There existed a link between England’s bill of rights of 1689 and the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This formed the central idea in the discussion leading to the second amendment, but unfortunately, the only people who got allowed to own guns were the Protestants. According to the amendment, guns were to get kept away from citizens who had no authorization to kill such as the farmers and low-grade merchants (Tucker 49-54).
Furthermore, Rawle (168-170) equally supported Tucker’s views on the amendment of the bill of rights especially the part that touched on individual security. Like England, the U.S. also boasts of various liberties and freedoms that its citizens have always enjoyed. Looking closely at the sentiments of the supporters of the second amendment, it can get noted that there should not be any clause made by anyone in power to give the Congress the power to disarm the citizens. As a delegate to the Constitution Convention, it would be critical to let the debaters understand that the state should not get granted any power to control the ownership and keeping of arms by individuals. Such can only get done in pretense, under the flagship of the state legislation. In case any trial gets initiated by any individual or body due to his or its power, the only way to deal with the second amendment would be to refer to the provisions of the 1791 amendment to the U.S Constitution. About the gun laws and the power to overturn specific decisions, the provisions in the amendment advocated that appeals get made the decision to ensure a higher court legitimatizes or illegitimate a resolution made by a lower court. However, the amendment also highlighted particular guidelines to the ownership and usage of firearms. For instance, it termed the meeting of citizens with the firearms as a chargeable offense, and carriage of firearms to public places got prohibited in some countries.
In Hill (739), the right to own the firearms was rightly considered. It was to offer a robust ethical pattern beside usurping and indiscriminate influence of potentates. The citizens will get capable of resisting and triumphing against the oppressive rulers. Irrespective of the changes in the positive direction witnessed in the military, the American citizens are not able to enjoy their services to satisfaction. The particular discontent against the military may lead to contempt and disgust, undermining the all possible protections intended by the particular clause (Hill 739). These are some of the reasons why the 2nd amendment was put in place to take care of matters that might not have gotten dealt with in the first amendment.
Cooley (271-279) asserts that it could be thought from the phrasing of the amendment that the right to own the firearms was specifically granted to the military. Unfortunately, the interpretation could fall short of the test. The composition of the military was for a designated group; persons under the law, liable to the expeditious accomplishment of the army role, and small number only would also be granted the right. In case this could be the case then the purpose of the guarantee could not make sense, the action or inaction of the government would keep it in check.
Moreover, Mack (139-146) in a review of the Lysander Spooner’s article on the second amendment interpreted it to mean asserting the individual’s rights specifically against the governments that are oppressive and full of injustice. The underlying base of the theory is on the intellectual footing and other eradicators who were against slavery and slave trade and believed that it was not morally justifiable to practice it. There was a direct connection between the slave rights and the second amendment (Waldman 58-59).
Methodology
A survey design was used and a random sampling of the respondents was made by the researcher with the target being the legal practitioners and the attorneys of the states. Questionnaires were administered as a data collection tool with a combination of some interviews. The data was analyzed using the theme analysis, as it was qualitative data analysis. The questionnaires got administered to those we could hardly reach while the interview was done to the ones we could meet in different states within the United States. A samples size of fifty practitioners got used in the study.
Findings
The findings got focused on the interpretation of the law, what our forefathers desired with the second amendment. On the question about the well-regulated military, it implied that it required having a well-trained and disciplined army. The adherence to this proposition means that the military is a unique type of movement that requires practice and time and would not get composed in a few days. The training requires some threshold that if not met, the person needs to be disqualified.
In trying to understand what the term the right of the citizens simply, indiscriminate, it refers to all the political community members. The members are part of the national community, developed appropriate assembly with the nation to be equally known for being part of it.
The interpretation of the term keep and bear arms, the concern is on the weapons that were not specifically designed for military use in their capacity. The predisposition that citizens should hold is interpreted as having weapons, while the term bear arms are used to refer to the carrying of the weapons outside the organized military.
Conclusion
In conclusion, there is no need as a nation to amend the second amendment or to alter its meaning. There need not be a new cognitive or strenuous reading to reconcile the common sense explained clearly in the constitution. The focus at such a time should be to ensure that there is sanity in the rule and its authentic meaning. The second amendment was done specifically to safeguard the rights of the American citizens on self-defense, and a further amendment to it will jeopardize its original purpose.
Works Cited
Cooley, Thomas M. “The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America.” The Yale Law Journal 8.2 (1898): 271-279.
Hill, Howard C. “A New Commentary on the Constitution of the United States the Constitution of the United States: Its Sources and Its Application. Thomas James Norton.” The School Review 30.10 (1922): 789-789.
Mack, Eric. “Lysander Spooner: Nineteenth-Century America’s Last Natural Rights Theorist.” Social Philosophy and Policy 29.2 (2012): 139-176.
Rawle, William. A View of the Constitution of the United States of America (2nd Ed.). Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Confederate Reprint Company, 2015. Print.
Tucker, Stanley. “Second amendment.” U S Supreme 10.2 (2013): 23-53.
Waldman, Michael. The Second Amendment: A Biography. USA: Simon and Schuster, 2015.
Print.
