Second Amendment

Considering that the Constitution was written in 1787, the fact that 2nd amendment rights are still argued over points to the nature of the document. The argument goes beyond the right to bear arms and the second amendment, but rather is an ever-evolving conversation on the Constitution itself. Two central parties exist when interpreting the United States Constitution. Many attest that the Document should be considered as fixed in time and as such, makes concrete statements regarding law and governance. On the other hand, many scholars state that the Constitution and the 2nd amendment need to be viewed as a living entity, a document that changes and progresses with each generation.

* Many people accept the second amendment as proof of the right to bear arms. Taking a closer look at the actual text of the 2nd amendment may paint another picture all together. The second amendment read as such; “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.” Clearly, the text as written states nothing of an individual right to bear arms.

* This is not to say that the American Constitution disallows the right to bear arms, but the 2nd amendment does not really state anything beyond the recognition of a well regulated militia. In modern times, a well regulated militia does not exist but the second amendment refers to the way the continental army functioned during the Revolutionary War. Since America never existed as a nation they lacked a central military force, instead, the army functioned as separate “minute-men” or militias overseen by a central hierarchy.

* At this point, its required to take a second look at how one interprets the Constitution. Some state that everything in the Constitution is legal, and unless case precedent explicitly allows something, then the action is illegal. Others claim that the Constitution provides a foundation that requires blocks to be built on top to determine illegality or legality. The 2nd amendment does not explicitly refer to an individual but many in the former camp say that the intent of the right remains the same. Opposition parties state the later shows that the founding fathers lived in a different time and these rights require formulation by subsequent generations.

Clearly, there is no inherently correct argument surround the 2nd amendment. In accepting one side completely, however, there lacks the full contemplation that the Constitution requires.