Anda di halaman 1dari 2

The purpose of this essay is to justify the rights granted by the United States of Americas 2nd Amendment to the

Constitution. First I will give multiple interpretations of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and attempt to ascertain its true meaning. Second I will give examples of rights and freedoms pertaining to the 2nd Amendment granted by the United States Supreme Court. Third I will offer many attempted arguments against the 2 nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution reads as such: 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. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html) Many people have attempted to translate the meaning of the 2 nd Amendment, the most often argued is that the Founding Fathers intended this strictly for a Militia and that the National Guard is a Militia. However, at the time of the writing, Militias were made only of citizen volunteers therefore the meaning of Militia to the Founding Fathers was of a group of citizens hence the statement the right of the people to keep and bear Arms. Some would argue that the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd Amendment as a stopgap for defense against tyranny and that we no longer require such an Amendment in the modern world. We have seen though that this is not true in that there have been multiple dictatorships and regimented governments in the modern world and it would be foolish just to assume that the United States of America is simply above that as it is entirely possible for it to happen here as anywhere. Therefore the Founding Fathers fears of tyranny are justified and still valid as they were in the late 18th century. One often overlooked aspect of the Constitution is the fact it is named the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers believed that the rights laid out were God given rights to all men of the world. This included the ability to defend yourself both personally and on a grander scale such as war or invasion of your homeland. They believed no man should ever be stripped of the physical ability to defend themselves.

Multiple cases have gone to the United States Supreme Court concerning a citizens right to bear arms. A key example would be the Courts decision on District of Columbia vs. Heller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller). The ruling stated that an individual citizen has a right to protect themselves from what the State cannot. As seen variously in recent history law enforcement response times are often not fast enough and they cannot be everywhere all at once. The argument about the National Guard being the Militia is also invalid as proven in case of Perpich vs. Department of Defense (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&linkurl=%3C%LINKURL%%3E& graphurl=%3C%GRAPHURL%%3E&court=US&case=/us/496/334.html). The courts ruled that

when you enlist in a state National Guard you are enlisting into the National Guard of the United States, which is a Federal military therefore not a true Militia and in fact the definition of a Militia is armed citizens joining together to protect their homes. The Selective Service Act and all those registered under it is technically a Militia. Most hearings before the Supreme Court of the United States have address the issue of individual rights to bear arms and have consistently ruled in favor of the individual as seen on the 2nd Amendment Foundation website http://www.saf.org/2ndAmendSupremeCourtTable.html.

Many arguments are made against the 2nd Amendment and most if not all are refuted by simple facts. Many numbers are thrown around but when fully researched and both sides of the story are seen they are seen to be false or exaggerated. The one and only possibly valid argument against the 2nd Amendment and an individuals right to bear arms would be that of public safety. Even that argument is broad and blanketing and must be broken down. Simple blanket statements such as taking away all guns will make the streets safer can be refuted by looking at Washington, D.C. and Chicago. Both of which have excessive gun control and are also in the running for murder capital of the United States. Many will also point to Australia and Great Britain. While gun murders are down all other crime is drastically rising. Australia, home invasions while the home owners are home are up over 200%. Some will debate this statistic but because of Australias loose definition of home invasion they claim the numbers are lower (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/home-invasions-the-new-fad/story-fn6b3v4f1226311651859). Great Britain has less gun murders but murder is still up to the point that doctors are now petitioning to have sharp pointed kitchen knives banned because of the number of stabbings they see (http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/british-doctors-callfor-ban-on-long-kitchen-knives-to-end-stabbings/). In truth, there is no fair interpretation of a contrasting position on the 2nd Amendment as no one has been able to come up with a fact backing argument.