The specifics of the Second Amendment are the subject of various ideological debates. The Second Amendment refers to the portion of the Bill of Rights that gives people the freedom to bear arms. This section of the constitution was adopted in 1791. The main source of the debate surrounding the Second Amendment comes from the fact that there are two possible texts addressing the right to bear arms. The text that was passed by the Congress states that the right of the “people to bear arms, shall not be infringed”. The one that was ratified by Thomas Jefferson has the same statement but does not have a comma between the two statements.
The clamor by the citizens to have the right to bear arms dates back to the pre-constitutional period. This was when the English law was in force. The law had absolutely no infringements against citizens having arms in their possession. This was the case until some of the clauses of this law were changed giving the King the right to disarm his subjects and form a permanent army (Cornell 67). It is for this reason that when it was time for Americans to draft their own law, they chose to avoid the situation where one ruler specified who could own and keep arms. This is because the early English legislation gave only some portions of the population the right to bear arms. For example, in some instances Protestants had the express right to bear arms. Such scenarios were the main motivation for the constitutional framers to avoid denying any American this right.
The interpretation of the Second Amendment varies depending on who is doing it. This interpretation also seems to be influenced by the underlying interests of the interpreter. For instance, The National Rifle association has the Second Amendment clause engraved in their headquarters. However, their engraving excludes the militia clause. On the other hand, those advocating for gun control interpret the Second Amendment as granting a state the right to have a militia and not individuals. Considering these factors, it is then important to consider all the facts surrounding the Second Amendment before interpreting it. This is easier to do when one does not have any vested interests in the matter.
To effectively interpret the Second amendment, each of the two clauses that constitute it should be looked into separately. The first of these clauses states that “a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state” (Bogus 44). This clause was originally enacted so that citizens could use guns to protect themselves from slave uprisings, Native Americans, bandits, and thieves. The clause was also meant as a warning to the other kingdoms that had the intention of invading America. Militia has several meanings depending on the context of its use. The first one is the militia whose formation was allowed by the American colony charter. Under this charter all able bodied American men had to belong to a militia. These militias were meant for territorial protection. The other type of militia is the uniformed one that was later formed under an Act of law. Militia can then be concluded to originally refer to the citizens of the United States.
The second clause of the Second Amendment states that the people’s right to “keep and bear arms should not be infringed” (Bogus 45). The main items of interpretation here are the words “people”, “arms”, “keep”, and “bear”. Some interpret the word people as referring to individuals. Others interpret it as referring to a collective unit. The phrase to “keep and bear” refers to the individuals’ right to own, carry, and learn to handle firearms. Arms on the other hand refer to any weapon that was suitable to be used for military purposes when this legislation was passed.
Considering all the above arguments, it can therefore be concluded that the Second Amendment gives individual citizens the right to bear arms. This is mostly dependent on the scenario surrounding the drafting of this legislation. During this time the legislation gave citizens the right to bear arms for various reasons. The law should then be carried on in the same context. The first clause of this Amendment refers to the citizens’ right to have weapons for their own protection. The second part denies any organization from taking the citizens’ right to own arms. This was the original intention of this legislation and it should not be changed.
Works Cited
Bernstein, R. The Founding Fathers Reconsidered, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Bogus, Carl. The Second Amendment in Law and History: Historians and Constitutional Scholars on the Right to Bear Arms, New York, NY: The New Press, 2001. Print.
Cornell, S. Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect, New York, NY: St. Martin’s, 2000. Print.
Meyerson, Michael. Liberty’s Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote the Federalist Papers, Defined the Constitution, and Made Democracy Safe for the World, New York, NY: Basic Books, 2008. Print.