The Context Of The Second Amendment Essay

The Context Of The Second Amendment Essay, Research Paper The Context of The Second Amendment The interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America has been a topic of controversy since its acceptance over two-hundred years ago. This controversy stems from the fact that the amendment was written for reasons for the most part that do not have any relevance today. One side argues the amendment void, and the other takes it out of historical context so it portrays the meaning they want. To understand what the second Amendment means, one must interpret the actual text, the historical background for its adoption, and what it means today. ?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?(Nesbit, 309). What many people see when they read this is, ?the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed?. One can say that it clearly states that the people do have a right to have firearms. Who are ?the people?? Some argue that the people are just what it says, citizens. ?[M]any legal historians have concluded that the right is corporate rather that individual?(Hook, 30). Meaning that the right is giving to the state government not to individual citizens. Others argue that it does give people the right to bear arms, but only if you belong to a certain group. This group is defined by the beginning preamble to the Second Amendment, ?A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State?. This

preamble is set out to regulate the other half of the Amendment. What is a militia? ?[A] militia is a body of men enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill and exercises, but serving full time only in emergency?(Hook, 25). This is talking about a State sponsored militia that is well-regulated. Since there are no State Militias do the people have any right to bear Arms? According to this amendment it is up to the State to decide that. This whole Amendment is guarantee?s the state the right to have a well-regulated militia in which the people can bear arms. ?[T]he individuals right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated [state] militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by

individuals is not constitutionally protected?(Nisbet, 316). One cannot only look at the text to understand the true meaning of the Second Amendment one must also look into the historical reasons for its adoption. The struggle with England and King George scared the American people. They saw a man corrupted by power and using his power to do evil. The founding fathers realized that one man having so much power could be corrupting. That is why they set up our political system with many checks and balances so that one branch could not dominate the other two. The founding fathers feared that the one man in control could turn out to be a tyrant. For this reason, they feared to have a standing army of professionally trained soldiers. The founding fathers set up the Second Amendment

for the possibility that the government would have to be overthrown. ?[The Second Amendment,] a statement perhaps aimed less at the right of the individual to carry arms than to prohibit the establishment of a permanent army of professional soldiers who might some day offer a threat to the civilian society the envisaged?(Hook, 26). So the second Amendment was set up to protect the citizens from the possible oppression they could undergo from their own government. It was also set up to protect us from other countries. At the time standing armies were hired soldiers and mercenaries who for the most part fought for the money instead of the country. The founding fathers believed that state militias fighting for their country and freedom would be much more effective in battle. ?A