Replies
Replies
1- In general, the definition of militia is defined as, a body of citizens organized for military service. That's why there is no doubt that militia is necessary to protect people. According to AM Gov. book, "The text of the Second Amendment is- "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"". While looking at this text, it is clear that militia man is allowed to keep and bear arms, because in 1789, when this Amendment was written, the nation was a young one, and there was always threats from Native Americans attack. Also, there was not enough army to protect the new nation, so ordinary citizens had to be armed for any possible danger or attack.
"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." - James Madison. This particular quote by James Madison, who is a founding father, gives the second Amendment a different rationale. According to James Madison, ordinary citizens should have firearms so they can protect themselves from the tyranny of government.
In District of Colombia et al. v. Heller, justice Scalia delivered that, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home". In that case, the court interpreted that The Second Amendment not only gives the militia to bear arms but also gives individual to keep guns for lawful purpose.
Likewise, The Second Amendment can be rationalized in different ways, but looking at current events such as October 2017's mass shooting on Las Vegas, or hundreds of shooting that took place on past years, the time has now come to decide how to interpret the Second Amendment, which can ensure a safer future.
2- Hi to all,
The Second Amendment which is the right to keep and bear arms’ rationale is for citizens to be able to own guns and defend themselves. In basic terms, this was a given right to our citizens to also defend our country when it was adopted in 1700s. According to Losco & Baker (2017), “they (National Rifle Association) stress that the government owes citizens the right to own guns in order to secure their freedom” (p. 87). There are several ways that this rationale can be interpreted. First, anyone will just be able to purchase their own gun. This was not regulated by the government. Some have interpreted this as “arming themselves and forming militias” and so, there are certain groups that are armed to be able to “defend themselves”. Second, citizens will be able to carry their weapon wherever they go. Lastly, people can purchase any type of gun or weapon to protect themselves. Although in our current times, background checks are done before a person can purchase a gun and there is a ban for purchasing Assault weapons.
Although there are many opponents to this right because of its negative ramifications, it has not brought any changes or repeal this amendment. Some people can argue that as the Second amendment states “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is not comparable to current times. Enemies are not near us or surrounding us but they are thousands of miles away. Another issue is that guns are ending up in the hands of irresponsible and criminal citizens that uses these guns as weapons to hurt others and not to protect themselves. According to Samuels (2015), “Justice Stephen Breyer at a moment in modern America when more than 30,000 lives are lost to gun violence each year, and mass shootings are a common occurrence, the majority opinion relied heavily on a guesstimate (and a rotten one at that) of what the Second Amendment meant more than 200 years ago, with no common-sense balancing test taking into account the real-world consequences for today” (para 8).
3- The protection of the Second Amendment with regards to the right to bear arms goes back to the Federalists and the constitution construction. James Madison captured a philosophy with regards to liberal democratic principles in The Federalist No. 51. He reasoned that “in framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself” (Lasco & Baker, 2017, p. 26). The Framers of the constitution were trying to protect the people from unruly government through checks and balances. The Bill of Rights “protected citizens from actions taken by the national government” (Lasco & Baker, 2017, p. 32).
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” (Lasco & Baker, 2017, p.87). There is a maintaining controversy on how this rationale for bearing arms is interpreted. The citizens in favor of firearm ownership stress that “the government owes citizens the right to own guns in order to secure their freedom” (Lasco & Baker, 2017, p. 87). Those in favor of firearm control stress “the italicized words that imply that only persons who are members of the government militia have the right to own firearms” ( Lasco & Baker, 2017, p. 87). These two opposing views continue to create tension and controversy in the United States. The Amendments themselves do not explain the purposes of why which leaves it up to individual interpretation that may be influenced by personal experience, history or news reports.
4- The motivation behind the Second Amendment protecting the “right to bear arms” within the U.S. is because there is a lot of controversy as to who can own a gun and how it is being used. In the AM Gov Textbook, it states that the those who have ownership of a gun only have the right to bear arms if they are a part of the military (AM GOV, pg.87). The Second Amendment gives people in the U.S. the opportunity to protect their freedom with being able to own a gun. The rationale of the Second Amendment can be interpreted as an amendment that is misused or not properly enforced. In example, in the AM GOV textbook, it states how we have experienced many multiple mass shootings that have affected our country. These acts of gun violence have raised the question of gun restrictions but these restrictions have not yet been successful.