The Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution - Essay Example

The U.S Second Amendment states that "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (Ruben, Eric and Darrell AH Miller 4) However, since its ratification in December 1791, Americans have consistently argued on its interpretation. According to pro-gun advocates, the Second Amendment offers individual citizens the right to own guns, and thus believe that the gun control regulations enacted by the Congress are a violation of the constitution. In fact, gun lobbyists have consistently used the statement (violation of the rights provided under the Second Amendment) both in essays and editorials to protest gun control regulations (Volokh 1443). On the other hand, the critics say that the amendment provides for the collective rights. Nonetheless, both of these interpretations have been playing a critical role shaping the ongoing gun control debate. This paper, therefore, aims to determine whether the Second Amendment grants individuals or groups the right to bear arms.

The pro-collective side perceives the amendment as providing each state in America the right to maintain formal militia units and train them to protect the state against any oppression from the federal government. According to these groups holding the collective view, the clause well-regulated militia openly implies that the Second Amendment accords organized groups instead of individuals the right to own arms (Meltzer 1483). The collectivists hold the view that the Second Amendment only gives formal militia recognized by the state authorities the right to possess arms, and stress that it is not the responsibility of the federal government to disband or abolish state militias.

On the other hand, the pro-gun lobbyists interpret the amendment as giving all citizens the right to bear arms for personal protection when faced with a dangerous situation without federal interference through regulations. According to the individualists' view, the militia clause quoted in the amendment does not in any way restrict American citizens from bearing arms. It is evident that both of the arguments provided by each side have contributed significantly in informing the current gun control debate in the United States (Ruben, Eric and Darrell AH Miller 9). The individualist view comprises of individuals as well as organizations such as the National Rifle Association who unanimously hold the perspective that the spirit and letter of the Constitution gives all Americans exclusive rights to possess arms and not only the militia or organized groups as espoused by those of the collectivists view. However, Brady Campaign and his ilk that supports the enactment of stricter gun control laws stress that the Second Amendment is not a blank check to for all people to bear arms (Lund 63). According to them, it is necessary for the government both local and federal to enact policies and regulations that determine who can have access to arms, where can they get them, under what conditions or considerations should they be given arms and what types of firearms can be given to individuals.

Pro-gun advocates have consistently decried the activist courts that are supposedly altering the plain meaning of the constitution. Therefore, the gun lobbyists apparently have the recourse of rejecting the judicial system review that has consistently seen their cases defeated in courts (Meltzer 1486). However, it is not also clear whether they can trust the Congress to deliver on their demands by defeating laws that aim at controlling gun ownership since the libertarians and conservatives consider the idea as anathema.

The collectivists state that even accepting the interpretations of the pro-gun regulations on the Second Amendment does not stop the state from controlling guns. They opine that the amendment only stipulates that individuals have the right to bear arms, but does not touch anything on regulating them for purposes of design, caliber or safety (Rosenthal 1187). However, the arguments forwarded by the individualists seem to imply that lack of any mention of such terms gives individuals express opportunity and right to bear any arm of their choice, and the government is not supposed to use constitutional silence as permission to regulate their rights. However, this perspective is based on a false premise. For instance, even though the First Amendment abhors the Congress from making any law that might abridge the citizens' freedom of expression, it is quite evident that the government regulates numerous forms of speech such as insider trading, fraud, malicious falsehood, and slander among others through regulations that are upheld by the Supreme Court (Kopel 417). Therefore, it is essential to remind the individualists that the same principle would apply in the situation of the Second Amendment.

Nonetheless, the issue becomes even more fascinating when arm regulations are approached by category. There are some weapons that cannot logically be left in the hands of private citizens. For instance, no one can be allowed to own biological and chemical weapons. Nuclear weapons are also out of the equation by any standard. It would be hard to fathom if the government left bombers, battleships, and tanks in the hands of individuals. In the society where people get angry consistently, drink, jealous, mentally ill and are self-destructive, no right thinking individual would sell these weapons of mass destructions freely in the market on accounts of constitutional interpretation. It would only make sense to prohibit such weapons from reaching the hands of the people (Rosenthal 1187). However, this act violates the Second Amendment. Most individualists admit that literal interpretation of the amendment allows people the right to bear any form of arms; including weapons of mass destruction which is archaic. Therefore, putting everything into perspective, it is clear that the American Founders did not foresee the mess in the interpretation of the constitution. Currently, the pro-gun lobbyists argue for the amendment of the constitution to exclude nuclear weapons, which implies a creative but wrong interpretation of the constitution (O'Shea 584).

The argument is suspicious for multiple reasons. The first rationale that gave individuals the right to bear arms was to defend themselves and their state against the tyrannical federal government (Lund 96). Having this in mind, it would be irrational to own small arms but surrender overwhelming advantages such as smart weaponry and nuclear weapons to the government on the pretense of protection from the same government. Considering the fanaticism that surrounds gun lobby to enable individuals to protect themselves from the government tyranny, this point makes it clear that the issue of protection against the government is a false claim (O'Shea 585). The argument also concedes a certain point which informs gun regulation advocates; that some weapons are too dangerous to be permitted in the society. Now, it does not require nuclear weapons to commit an atrocity; the murder statistics in the U.S can prove the deadly consequence of handgun in society. Thus, considering the letter and the spirit of the constitution, the Second Amendment provides the rights to organized groups within a state and not individuals to bear arms.

Works Cited

Kopel, David B. "Does the Second Amendment Protect Firearms Commerce." Harv. L. Rev. F. 127 (2013): 230.

Kopel, David B. "The First Amendment Guide to the Second Amendment." Tenn. L. Rev. 81 (2013): 417.

Lund, Nelson. "The Second Amendment and the Inalienable Right to Self-Defense." April 2014 (2014).

Meltzer, Jonathan. "Open Carry for All: Heller and Our Nineteenth-Century Second Amendment." Yale LJ 123 (2013): 1486.

O'Shea, Michael P. "Modeling the Second Amendment Right to Carry Arms (I): Judicial Tradition and the Scope of Bearing Arms for Self-Defense." Am. UL Rev. 61 (2011): 585.

Rosenthal, Lawrence. "The Limits of Second Amendment Originalism and the Constitutional Case for Gun Control." Wash. UL Rev. 92 (2014): 1187.

Ruben, Eric M., and Darrell AH Miller. "Preface: The Second Generation of Second Amendment Law & Policy." Law and Contemporary Problems 80.2 (2017): 1-9.

Volokh, Eugene. "Implementing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda." Ucla L. Rev. 56 (2008): 1443.