Analysis Of 'The Armed Citizen In The Early Republic' By Robert E. Shalhope

1098 Words3 Pages

Robert E. Shalhope, author of “The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic,” explores the controversy regarding the Second Amendment and concludes that the Second Amendment guarantees United States citizens the right to keep and bear arms. Shalhope, a specialist in eighteenth and nineteenth century American political culture, has a strong background in history as he is the George Lynn Cross Research Professor of History at the University of Oklahoma. Even though there are many different interpretations of the amendment, the Second Amendment clearly states that individuals have the right to bear arms. Shalhope argues that the Second Amendment provides every citizen the right to bear arms in order to protect themselves in the face of danger as well as to maintain freedom and liberty in a society. Since its ratification in December of 1791, the Second Amendment has created a major controversy as Americans have been arguing over the meaning and interpretation of the amendment. Due to the controversy, “angry polarization and distortion, rather …show more content…

Cress argues that the right to bear arms should be given only to organized militia groups. However, it was clear that the Founding Fathers made no distinction between the militia and the people. The Second Amendment allows individuals to own guns and to be able to protect themselves. If the Founding Fathers wanted gun ownership to be for militias only, they would have specifically stated that in the Second Amendment. Cress ineffectively argues that the militias were an important part of protecting the people when in reality they were not well-trained and may not have been committed to the cause which rendered them ineffective. Therefore, Cress’ argument is not reflective of the attitudes of the Founding

Open Document