The Second Amendment grants citizens the right to bear arms for a well-regulated militia. English history shows access to guns was an obligation, but in the 17th century, owning arms required property. American immigrants valued the right to bear arms due to dangers and hunting skills. The amendment also addresses the need for a well-ordered militia, but the intent is complex. Some interpret it literally, while others suggest certain types of weapons should be regulated or banned.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is often referred to as giving citizens the right to bear arms. The text of the official copy upon distribution to the States reads as follows: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In the version first ratified by the Senate, there is a comma after the word “arms”.
There are many precedents in English history for people having access to their guns under the Second Amendment. People were expected to answer the call to military service of their kings and to bear their own arms in any war. In fact, keeping a weapon in the late Middle Ages wasn’t exactly a right, but instead it was an obligation. This changed in the 17th century when English citizens were required to own a certain amount of property to hold arms, and the law was further extended in the 17th when King James II made the ownership of arms illegal for Protestants. James’s decision was not reversed until the late 17th century.
It is easy to see why American immigrants, many of them Protestants, would have valued the right to bear arms especially, and would have been anxious to see this provision granted. In the beginning, the country they started to colonize had many dangers and required hunting skills. In both England and the New World, however, there were fears of what would happen if all people possessed weapons worthy of warfare. Dissatisfaction with the government led to violent riots.
One of the other issues addressed in the Second Amendment is that the US government needed to have a well-ordered militia when required. After the American Revolutionary War, there was concern that a standing army, made up of professional soldiers, might threaten the nation’s security, and it was also expensive. Putting the burden of keeping the peace in the land on its citizens was a partial solution. In contrast to this view was the fact that the framers of the Constitution knew that protesting the government could easily have led to more violent riots. In the context of the war just fought, it was not unreasonable to assume that people could still find reasons to be dissatisfied with the new US government.
It is important to understand the complexity of the intent in formulating this amendment. After discussions, the US House and Senate created and ratified the final version, which emphasizes the need for people to keep guns to keep America and its people safe. In the current interpretation, some people prefer the literal translation, that “the right … to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Others look at the spirit in which the amendment was written and suggest that keeping Americans safe is no longer best served by all who have guns, that the founding fathers could not imagine the strength and proliferation of guns in the present day and that certain types of weapons should be strictly regulated or banned.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
