Why Is The Second Amendment Important

The Second Amendment 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.” This statement basically means that people should be able to own guns for their own security and that right should not be taken away. The Second Amendment was added to the Constitution because the creators of the Constitution wanted to make sure that it protected basic rights, including the right to bear arms. It was also added to the Constitution because shortly after it was ratified, James Madison wanted to give more power to the state militia and to give more power to the people to give them the ability to fight back against the Federalists and the tyrannical government they were creating. After fighting off the British, the Second Amendment was created to give citizens the opportunity to fight back against controlling government and protect themselves with their own weapons.
People have been debating the meaning of the Second Amendment since its ratification on December 15, 1791. One side feels that the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect collective rights as seen in ”United States v. Miller,” while the opposing side feels that it was meant to protect individual

rights as seen in “District of Columbia v. Heller”. The people who take the collective side feel the amendment gives each state the right to have and maintain a strong and powerful militia. They argue that the right to bear arms should only be given to organized government groups. The opposing side feels every citizen should have the right to own guns and be able to protect themselves in the face of danger. They believe this amendment was not meant to restrict citizens’ individual rights.
Both sides of this argument have helped shape our views of the amendment today. The people supporting an individual’s right to own a gun, such as the National Rifle Association, argue that guns should be given to all people, not just those in the armed forces. The people supporting stricter gun control, such as the Brady Campaign, feel the Second Amendment does not give everybody the right to freely own a gun.
The Supreme Court has changed the Second Amendment’s meaning many times. In 1875, the Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment didn’t apply to individual states. In 1886, they said that the right to bear arms only belonged to the Federal Government. In 2007, it was prohibited for any citizen in the District of Columbia to own a handgun. Before the case “District of Columbia v. Heller,” the Supreme Court had interpreted the meaning of the Second Amendment based on verdict of the 1939 case “United States v. Miller.” The US v. Miller case started in 1938. It was brought about because Jack Miller and Frank Layton carried unregistered sawed-off shotguns across the state line. Congress tried to crack down on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, so they passed the National Firearms Act. The National Firearms Act imposed a tax on gun ownership and required a stamp for lawful ownership of firearms. The verdict of “United States v. Miller” suggested that the right to bear arms was collective, not individual; this collective right to bear arms was directly linked with state or government military weapons.
In “District of Columbia v.

Heller,” the United States Supreme Court revealed what the Second Amendment is really about. In June 2008, a S.W.A.T. officer with the Washington, D.C., Police Department sued in the District of Columbia District Court for the right to carry a handgun while off duty. The Supreme Court ruled that he had the right to carry a weapon for a lawful purpose, and the District Court's opinion was reversed from the decision in 1939 when the Second Amendment was last interpreted. It also ruled that two District of Columbia laws, one that banned handguns and the other one that required firearms kept in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violated the Second Amendment

rights.
I believe every American citizen should be able to bear arms, just like the Constitution states. I agree with the court’s decision in “District of Columbia v. Miller” because I believe that people should have the right to protect themselves in the face of danger. Interpretations before “District of Columbia v. Miller” did not allow for the freedoms the Constitution was originally written for. There should be no tax or price required to collect our Constitutional freedoms. The Second Amendment was written to protect individual rights because it was based off America’s “Unalienable Rights”, the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.