OSHodges 1

Why the Wording of the Second Amendment Should Be Revised

The Second Amendment has become a controversial amendment in recent years. In 2012
alone, several mass shootings occurred in the United States. In July, a gunman opened fire in a
crowded movie theatre in Aurora, Colorado, killing 12 and wounding 58. In early August, 6
were killed and 3 were injured at a Sikh temple outside of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. In late August,
a shooter opened fire in front of the Empire State Building, and in their attempts to stop him,
police may have shot and wounded 9 bystanders. In December, 26 people20 students and 6
adultswere shot and killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.
After these tragic events, the debate regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment has
come into the national spotlight. Many people want more laws to prevent individuals from
owning guns. They think this will help prevent shootings and keep criminals and mentally ill
people from getting guns. Other people want to keep this right and not have it limited. They think
that having guns will allow them to protect themselves from criminals and the rise of a tyrannical
government.
Even though many interpret the Second Amendment to mean that it defends the right of
individual states to form and arm militias, others will argue that this amendment protects the
rights of individual citizens, with each group looking to the Second Amendment to prove their
argument. Throughout history, it had been standard procedure for civilians to be able to bear the
same arms as the military. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution is the
amendment and the section of the Bill of Rights that says that people have the right to keep and
bear arms. It states, 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. The idea behind this

OSHodges 2

amendment was to have and keep guns for protection against a corrupt and oppressive
government; but it was not meant to apply to the states. While it specifically does allow
Americans to own and use firearms, it does not guarantee them freedom from regulation. One of
the debates over the Second Amendment challenges the wording of this amendment. It can be
and has been interpreted in many ways. The way that an individual interprets the wording of the
Second Amendment influences their point of view on who has the right to "keep and bear arms."
Therefore, in order to avoid further misinterpretations, the Second Amendment should be
reworded to clarify its intended meaning and to clearly specify if it protects the right of the
individual or the right of the states.
Although the Second Amendment has been in place for over two centuries, there are
many undefined limitations when it comes to the right to bear arms. However, in order to
understand why the Bill of Rights was created, one must understand that the origins of the Bill of
Rights lie deep in American history. There is a further reason for examining the Second
Amendment in the light of English legal traditions. Not only did colonists arrive in the new land
equipped with an elaborate legal framework, they were instilled with that attitude of
antiauthoritarianism that had fueled the traumatic upheavals of the seventeenth century: The
English Civil War of 1642 and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This general distrust of central
power resulted in the English Bill of Rights in 1689 and was to produce the American Bill of
Rights a century later. Until late in the seventeenth century, England had no standing army, and
until the nineteenth century no regular police force. The maintenance of order was everyone's
business and an armed and active citizenry was written into the system. All able-bodied men
between the ages of sixteen and sixty were liable to be summoned to serve on the sheriff's posse
to pursue malefactors or to suppress local disorders. The idea of written documents protecting

OSHodges 3

individual liberties took early root in Englands American colonies, declaring that those who
migrated to the New World should enjoy the same privileges as if they lived in England. As an
article of the English Bill of Rights, the right to have arms was part and parcel of that bundle of
rights and privileges that English men carried with them to America and which they later fought
to preserve (Malcolm). At the time the Bill of Rights was ratified, America armed its citizens
because there was no standing army and the people had to be able to defend themselves from
foreigners, such as the French and the Indians, as well as the British, who were not fully defeated
until 1812. It is hard to imagine how the people of the thirteen colonies could have ever obtained
their independence from Great Britain at the end of the eighteenth century if the local population
had not been armed.
In the video Amendment 2: The Right to Bear Arms, it is stated that the Second
Amendment, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, was ratified into the United
States Constitution in 1791, and was introduced into the United States Constitution by James
Madison. This amendment was written a few years after winning independence from England
when America had just freed itself from oppressive rule, and gave the power to the people to bear
arms for protection from the State. According to the video, because the amendments limit the
federal governments ability to restrict the rights of individuals and states, the first ten
amendments are known as the Bill of Rights. When the colonists began to rise up against British
authority, early American revolutionaries were denied these basic rights, including that to carry
firearms. Therefore, the Second Amendment was written, and was both a reaction against the
British seizure of the state militias' weapons as well as a move by the anti-federalists to curb
federal power of the new government. It is also critical to remember that the Founding Fathers
were Englishmen before they were Americans. When they began to sow the seeds of revolt

OSHodges 4

against the British crown, they sought not to destroy all that had gone before but to protect rights
that they believed they already possessed.
Throughout most of U.S. history, the Second Amendment was not viewed as protecting
an individual right. It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment
addresses an individual right in District of Columbia v. HellerDistrict of Columbia v. Heller
was the first Supreme Court case to explore the meaning of the Second Amendment. In an article
written in the Bloomberg by Paul Barrett, "Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend
the Second Amendment?", the author discusses the ideas of John Paul Stevens, who had been
advocating for change on amending the Second Amendment in order to avoid the
misinterpretations in the current wording of the Amendment. Stevens was associate justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States from 1975 to 2010, who was on the losing end of a 5-4
decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. Barrett states that, Stevens believes that the authors
of the Second Amendment were primarily concerned about the threat that a national standing
army posed to the sovereignty of the statesas opposed to homeowners' anxiety about violent
felonshe thinks the best way to fix the situation is to amend the Second Amendment. In brief,
Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment was written at a time when oppressive rule
had just ended and was relevant for that time period. However, times have changed and Justice
Stevens believed that the Second Amendment should be amended to avoid further misconception
if five extra words were added as follows:
A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.

OSHodges 5

By adding those five words, this would allow only members of the militia or military to have
firearms. According to Barrett, the Supreme Court didn't say exactly what the Second
Amendment means. Although Barretts article was well written, this statement alone is a good
reason why the wording of the Second Amendment should be reworded and clearly defined.
On the contrary, Adam Gopnik, author of The Second Amendment Is a Gun-Control
Amendment, explains the rationale behind the Second Amendment and why people should just
interpret it the way it was originally written. The author briefly discusses the decision of District
of Columbia v. Heller, when Justice Antonin Scalia insisted that the Second Amendment
protected an individuals right to own weapons that are "in common use," while excluding
"dangerous and unusual weapons." But, what type of arms are citizens allowed to have? This is
where the Supreme Court has largely failed us. Gopnik contends that Justice Stevens and his
colleagues were asserting that essentially every kind of legislation concerning guns in the hands
of individuals was compatible with the Second Amendmentindeed, that regulating guns in
individual hands was one of the purposes for which the amendment was offered. Gopnik
concludes his article by stating, So there is no need to amend the Constitution, or to alter the
historical understanding of what the Second Amendment meant. With that said, anyone who
wants to both grasp that decisions radicalism and get a calm, informative view of what the
Second Amendment does say, and was intended to say, and was always before been understood
to say, should read Justice John Paul Stevenss persuasive dissent in that case. Every person who
despairs of the sanity of the country should read it, at least once, as a reminder of what sanity
sounds like.
One writer, who disagrees with the militia-only view and has a liberal viewpoint on gun
control, is Craig Whitney, author of Living with Guns: A Liberal's Case for the Second

OSHodges 6

Amendment. Whitney makes the point that gun ownership is a basic individual right, not
dependent on militia service, but that with it comes a social responsibility for how weapons are
bought, sold, and handled around the nation. In the early chapters of his book, Whitney traces the
constitutional right of gun ownership from English law to the Second Amendment, dwelling on
the origins of the text that now allows both for unregulated gun ownership. But at the same time,
he asserts the rights of the federal and state governments to legislate guidelines for the ways that
weapons are acquired, carried, and deployed. He agrees with the Supreme Court's Heller
decision, although scoffs at how they reached the conclusion that "the right to bear arms" is an
individual right. However, he sees no constitutional rationale for recent laws that condone Wild
West "stand your ground" practices, a law that authorizes an individual to protect and defend
their own life and limb against threat or perceived threat. This right is so fundamental that it is
difficult to find even liberal writers who would deny a citizen the right to protect his or her own
life. Yet at the same time, many would deny Americans the right of effective self-defense by
leaving their ability to own and carry a weapon to the good graces of the government.
As you can see, gun control has been a controversial issue for many years. A wellregulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms, shall not be infringed. That one sentence, filled with vague language, has led to
the evolution of two views on how to interpret laws. The individual-view tends to be championed
by opponents of gun control; the collective-view tends to be held by those who favor it. Yet to
each side in the gun debate, those words are absolutely clear.
Many believe the Second Amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of
federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger, with this view endorsing the
views of the National Rifle Associationkeep in mind that the NRA has completely twisted the

OSHodges 7

Second Amendment to protect the right to sell arms. A citizen's life or a child's life means
nothing to the NRA. Gun enthusiasts and gun lobbyists love to cite the Second Amendment as
the defense to their right to carry any weapon that they can get their hands on, for example
assault rifles. These gun owners/sellers have misinterpreted the original intent of the Second
Amendment and have expanded its guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms far beyond its
original bounds. Pro-gun advocates argue that this amendment is thought of as natural rights or
God-given rights. Meaning, the right cannot be taken away from them. These individuals believe
the amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.
However, the Bill of Rights was written a long time ago. At the time, the arms they were
referring to were muskets, not semi-automatic rifles. Additionally, America had just fought a war
against Britain, and a retaliation seemed inevitable. Nevertheless, a decades-long collaborative
effort by gun lobbyists and conservatives has successfully shifted the meaning of the Second
Amendment so that it can be used to justify letting anybody own any weapon that they choose.
As such, the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes that the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution secures an individual rightnot a collective oneto keep and bear arms.
While gun rights groups, led by the National Rifle Association, argue that these and other
proposals infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, those with the opposite
viewpoint believe that right does not extend to ownership of military-style firearms that are
otherwise known as assault weapons. Gun control advocates maintain that without the wellregulated militia the individual citizen has no use for the firearm under the Second Amendment.
The latter group translates the Second Amendment to mean that it defends the right of individual
states to form and arm militias. They believe the phrase, A well-regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state supports the argument that the right to bear arms is

OSHodges 8

not an individual right, but the right that states have to sustain their own security. They argue the
"well-regulated militia" clause clearly means the right to bear arms should only be given to these
organized groups. Like Justice Stevens, they also believe this allows for only those in the official
militia to carry guns legally, and say the federal government cannot abolish state militias. Those
who take the collective side think the amendment gives each state the right to maintain and train
formal militia units that can provide protection against an oppressive federal government,
whether it be from invasion or from their own government. For them, the Second Amendment is
all regulation and no rights.
Many of the debates over the Second Amendment challenge the wording of this
amendment. Other debates focus on what exactly the amendment means, which types of
weapons are deemed reasonable for protection, and the governments right to regulate gun
ownership. While the two sides disagree on the meaning of the Second Amendment, they share a
similar view of the right to bear arms: both see such a right as fundamentally inconsistent with
gun control, and believe we must choose one or the other. It is clear that although many will still
interpret the Second Amendment to mean that it defends the right of individual states to form and
arm militias, others will still argue that this amendment protects the rights of individual citizens.
In the wake of so many recent tragic events involving gun violence, many groups argue about
whether the Second Amendment actually protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms,
or a right that can be exercised only through military organizations. Both interpretations have
shaped the on-going discussions on gun control, with each group looking to the Second
Amendment to prove their argument. The basic purpose of the Second Amendment, then, was
that the people were not to be left defenseless. However, we no longer have a citizen militia; and,
our national defense does not depend on "a well-regulated militia," but on regular armed forces

OSHodges 9

and, in certain cases, the National Guard. In its original form, the militia was considered a first
line of defense in case of invasion by foreign forces. Private militias were not contemplated by
the Founding Fathers. This was to be a "people's militia," commanded, regulated and disciplined
by local officials. It might be that neither a militia nor an armed citizenry is appropriate for
modern society. Nevertheless, no matter where you stand on the issue, the controversy will be
over how much control the state or nation may have over what is determined to be a
Constitutional right. Therefore, if the Second Amendment were re-written, the only change
should be to remove the part before "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed." That would eliminate all the debate about whether or not the Second Amendment
protects individual rights or state rights. In rewording the Amendment, it would also provide a
more definitive answer to the question of who is allowed to have guns and for what reasons.

OSHodges 10

Works Cited
"The Bill of Rights: First Ten Amendments." Constitutional Amendments: An Encyclopedia of
the People, Procedures, Politics, Primary Documents, Campaigns for the 27 Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States. GreyHousePublishing. Amenia: Grey House Publishing,
2012. Credo Reference. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
Barrett, Paul. "Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment?"
Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 20 Feb. 2014. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
Gopnik, Adam. "The Second Amendment Is a Gun-Control Amendment - The New Yorker." The
New Yorker. 02 Oct. 2015. Web. 20 Mar. 2016.
Amendment 2: The Right to Bear Arms. Films On Demand. Films Media Group, 1998. Web. 3
Apr. 2016.
Whitney, Craig. Living with Guns: A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment. New York:
PublicAffairs, 2012. EBook Library. Web. 3 Apr. 2016.
"Court Rulings on Firearms." Gun Control: Restricting Rights or Protecting People? Sandra M.
Alters. 2011 ed. Detroit: Gale, 2011. 45-60. Information Plus Reference Series. Gale Virtual
Reference Library. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.
Malcolm, Joyce Lee. "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law
Tradition." Index of /mil. Web. 10 Apr. 2016.