Essay On The 2nd Amendment

The Constitution: Suppression of the 2nd Amendment “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 infringed.” Many people will recognize this as the 2nd amendment to the United States Constitution. What the people may not know is that it is under attack. Those that oppose the right of the citizens to own firearms are trying to eradicate the 2nd amendment because it guarantees that right to the American people. Liberals believe guns are evil devices that go around and shoot people. They conclude that by restricting and eventually banning guns, gun violence will resolve into nothing. The left tries to use the 2nd amendment to argue their point, but they pick

The preamble of the amendment states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” This is the source of most of the trouble regarding the 2nd amendment. The majority of gun control activists say that since it starts out with addressing a militia, then the amendment is limited to government regulated militias. At the same time, it goes on to say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” At this point it should be clear that the amendment is talking about everybody individually, giving everyone the right to own firearms without restrictions. On the other hand, the anti-gunners, think that it advances their argument even more. In the time period that the Constitution was written, the formal militia had to supply their own weapons and ammunition (Dowlut). On account of this, gun control supporters believe that was the reason for the 2nd amendment, but now, since the government supplies our militias (national guard) with guns and ammunition, the amendment is not needed, and the citizens should be denied their firearms. As sound as this argument seems it is easily defeated by the 10th amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” The key part of the amendment isn’t the central meaning; it is the physical words at the end, “reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” If the logic of the gun control advocates is applied to the situation, then the amendment just said the same thing twice, the states - meaning the actual states - and the people - meaning the states representing the people. Furthermore, if the founding fathers really did mean only to